Seminary president says evolution 'incompatible' with Christian faith

[I'm a bit busy at the moment and unable take the couple of minutes necessary to refute the silly arguments of Dr. Mohler's gross ignorance of the Scriptures and evolutionary theory. Not that Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, does much better defending his position. But I have argued the point elsewhere. You can find my many articles on the subject below under "Evolution".]

By Bob Allen
Wednesday, August 25, 2010

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- According to the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

"The theory of evolution is incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures," Albert Mohler, head of the Louisville, Ky., school, wrote in his blog.

Mohler's Aug. 25 blog posting was an open letter in response to an Aug. 21 Huffington Post article that accused him of making false statements about Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who originated the concept of natural selection to explain the diversity of life.

Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group formed to promote harmony between science and faith, reacted in the Huffington Post to comments critical of Darwin by Mohler delivered June 19 at an annual conference of Ligonier Ministries, founded by Calvinist theologian and pastor R.C. Sproul.

Giberson first questioned Mohler's critique of Darwin in an open letter July 6 on the BioLogos website. After waiting two months for a response, Giberson concluded in the Huffington Post article that Mohler "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose."

In his June speech, Mohler argued for the "exegetical and theological necessity" of affirming the universe is no more than several thousand years old and was created in six 24-hour days as recorded in Genesis.

Mohler said Bible passages like Romans 8 attribute death, pain and disaster to the fall of Adam as recorded in Genesis 3.

"We end up with enormous problems if we try to interpret a historical fall and understand a historical fall in an old-Earth rendering," Mohler said, referring to the school of interpretation that views a metaphorical reading of the creation passages in Genesis as compatible with both Christianity and evolutionary science. "This is most clear when it comes to Adam's sin."

"Was it true that, as Paul argues, when sin came, death came?" Mohler asked. "Well just keep in mind that if the Earth is indeed old, and we infer that it is old because of the scientific data, the scientific data is also there to claim that long before the emergence of Adam -- if indeed there is the recognition of a historical Adam -- and certainly long before there was the possibility of Adam's sin, there were all the effects of sin that are biblically attributed to the fall and not to anything before the fall. And we're not only talking about death, we're talking about death by the millions and billions."

Giberson, author of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, objected primarily in the Huffington Post article to Mohler's suggestion that evolution was "invented" to prop up Darwin's worldview rather than to explain observations in the natural world. He called it a "common misrepresentation" that evangelicals use to discredit evolution.

In his earlier blog post, however, Giberson questioned other statements in Mohler's address. They included: "We need to recognize that disaster ensues when the book of nature or general revelation is used in some way to trump Scripture and special revelation."

"I am taking you to mean that we should not let information from outside the Bible change our minds about what is inside the Bible," Giberson wrote.

"The example in your talk would suggest that information from geological records, radioactive dating, cosmic expansion and so on -- all of which suggests that the universe is billions of years old -- should not persuade us to set aside the natural reading of Genesis which suggests that the Earth is young," he wrote. "Is this a fair statement of your position?"

Giberson observed that the "natural reading" of Psalm 93 is that the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved. "Indeed this was thrown at Galileo and got him in trouble for proposing an 'unbiblical' astronomy."

He said "natural" readings of other Bible passages also suggest that slavery is OK and the moon is a light-creating body similar to the sun and "not just a big rock."

"Is there not a long list of examples where general revelation has forced us to set aside special revelation?" Giberson asked in his open letter to Mohler.

Mohler conceded in his blog to one statement that "appears to misrepresent to some degree Darwin's intellectual shifts before and during his experience on the Beagle" but otherwise proclaimed that "I stand by my address in full." He said he plans to address some of the issues raised by Giberson in the coming months.

"If your intention in Saving Darwin is to show 'how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,' what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution," Mohler admonished Giberson.

"In doing this, you and your colleagues at BioLogos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions."

PC Answers Questions to a Doctoral Student on Evolution and Religion

Last year a doctoral student at a university in Tennessee discovered my blog and a few discussions on Baptist online forums of which I had taken parting 2003. The student was researching the issue of evolution and religion for his dissertation, and I am apparently one of only a handful of evangelical Baptists that accepts the theory of biological evolution. Doesn’t speak well to the validity of my position, does it?

Nevertheless, the student sent me a few questions whose answers I shall now post.

First, are you currently a Baptist pastor?

No. I am a Baptist looking for a ministry in which to pastor.

I’ve pastored in churches in Texas and North Carolina.

I’m a son of a Baptist pastor and a grandson of Baptist missionaries.

Oddly enough, while I have been looking for ministry work in Southern Baptist churches, my wife and I have been attending a Methodist church here in Ohio, partly because it is like a Southern Baptist church we enjoyed in Texas.

And just this past Sunday, the pastor (a conservative and an inerrantist) made an aside comment that Christians should not be beating each other up over evolution.


Second, many people with whom I've talked have told me that the SBC has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in the last couple of decades. Would you agree with that? Any comments on it?

I include this lengthy response because I it might be of interest to you.

Yes, that is unfortunately true. I have fundamentalist friends and family, and I both love them and thoroughly enjoy ministering with them. And while I do not agree with many of their distinct positions, I don’t care that they have them.

The SBC has always been a very conservative body of Christian believers. The vast majority are conservatives in which there is a very large block of fundamentalists of various sorts. There have always been a significant minority of moderate Baptists and a very insignificant minority of liberals. The leadership of the SBC was made up of moderates and conservatives.

As I’m sure you are very much aware, the issues of biological evolution and the interpretation of the Bible caused tremendous controversy in the SBC during the 20th century. Under pressure from fundamentalists and conservatives, the SBC leadership wrote a confession of faith in 1925 and amended it in 1963. Both of these versions state the orthodox Christian beliefs that God created the world and that the Bible is authoritative. Moderates and many conservatives sought to be present an inclusive document.

However, in the 1980s, conservatives (with fundamentalist leaders) began to use their denominational leadership positions to reform the structure of the SBC to prevent anyone but conservatives from being appointed to positions in the organization. At the same time, conservatives began to fire all the non-conservatives that were already in SBC positions. They also fired conservatives who were critical of the other firings and the takeover. This continued through the 1990s and culminated in the conservatives and fundamentalists amending the confession of faith in 2000. After it was adopted, every employee of the SBC was required to sign this document or be fired. Many, many were fired or made a hasty retreat before they were. By itself, the implementation of this confession and its fall out had the SBC reeling from the inside out.

However, the 1963 version of the confession included a prologue that explicitly stated that this document was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” This allowed SBC employees (particularly seminary professors) from holding positions contrary to the 2000 confession just so long as they do not teach or preach otherwise. The last decade of the SBC has been repeated incidences of fundamentalist weeding these employees out and getting them fired.

What occurred in the SBC seminaries during the 1990s and 2000s has now begun to occur in Baptist colleges such as Carson Newman in TN and, most recently, at Truett-McConnell College in Georgia which plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the 2000 confession.

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4671/53/
Many of the same fundamentalist leaders are involved.

None of the three Baptist confessions (even the fundamentalist penned version of 2000) reference the issue of evolution either explicitly or implicitly.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

But there are many issues important to SBC fundamentalists on which there is less than solid convention support. And there is very little support for amending the Baptist confession.

Therefore, for the past few years, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has been using the trustee system of the various convention agencies, including the seminaries, to enact theological standards which would not pass via the regular practice of convention vote.

I mention all this because if you’re asking about the SBC becoming increasingly fundamentalistic and how this relates to evolution and education (particularly in TN), then this is what has been done to the Baptist seminaries and what is now being done at the Baptist colleges.


Third, and this is related to the second question, how common are your views on evolution among evangelicals? As I said, from my own perspective, they seem extremely rare.

From my perspective, I assume that they are very rare too. Most evangelicals seem to associate biological evolution with atheism.

But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most Southern Baptists who accept the theory of biological evolution would keep it to themselves.

Obviously, biological evolution isn’t mentioned in 2000 plus year old documents that make of the Bible. It’s certainly unessential to the Faith. A Christian can reject evolution and still have a healthy and productive spiritual life. And it’s not an issue with which the average pastor, religious teacher, or church confronts. Combined with its controversial nature, for a pastor or religious teacher to announce their support for the theory would only be a distraction from the essentials.

In my four years at seminary, I never heard a professor state their position on the issue. Only one student ever stated his position to me and only through commenting on my blog. During that time, I only heard two SBC leaders make statements at seminary denouncing biological evolution, and both of them are two of the three recognized individuals who led the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention.

Given this and all I mentioned regarding the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention, I think it’s quite understandable that many SBC employees and pastors would keep their position quiet.


Fourth, in the baptist discussion board I read when you were talking about Brady Tarr, you were talking about reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text. What do you mean by that? I'm afraid I'm not theologically trained.

It was a hypothesis I had then that I have yet to pursue any further than you have read. I have only met one Old Testament scholar (a friend) who holds this position. I’ve never seen it in any other paper, article, or book that I can find.

The Apocalyptic genre of literature essentially presents a “spiritual” interpretation of history. It offers a “behind-the-scenes” view of what is going on with particular events and peoples and how it relates to God and the writer of the apocalyptic work’s intended audience. Apocalyptic literature is popularly known to focus on future events, but it just as often comments on present and past events. The Biblical books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are prime examples but there are others in and outside the Jewish and Christian canons.

Apocalyptic literature will use symbolism, word play, exaggerated actions, fantastic creatures, “angelic beings”, truncated history, and otherworldly scenarios. This Biblical genre has a lot in common with basic dreams and many apocalyptic passages will occur in the context of a dream (Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7; but also, as I will argue one day, Genesis 28, 40, and 41). The first three chapters of Genesis contain symbolism, puns and word play, fantastic talking animals, “angelic beings”, and many other apocalyptic characteristics that I’ll argue. The connection to the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 is my favourite.

But even though my apocalyptic argument has yet to be made, many other evangelical and conservative scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the Genesis story hold the story to be figurative but true because its genre (whether poem, psalm, apocalypse, “myth”, short-story, etc.) permits to be non-literal but true.

Ask a fundamentalist about whether he or she believes that the book of Revelation is true. Naturally, he or she will say yes that they do, even though it is written in symbolic, non-literal language.


Fifth, have you been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? I don't think it's far from you, but I figured you'd have blogged about it if you had gone. Any comments on it?

I have not been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.


It was this question of which I was reminded while reading the Baptist Press article on “Noah’s Ark”. The Baptist Press quoted a statement from Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I currently live just over an hour away from the museum but have yet to visit.

Soul Competency Amongst 19th Century American Baptists

A friend of mine recently procured a first edition copy of Thomas Armitage’s, A history of the Baptists : traced by their vital principles and practices : from the time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the year 1886 (BX6231 .A7 1887).

Apparently, the vital principle is “Soul-liberty” which neatly summarizes all the Baptist practices and distinctives. Granted, he does not use the word “Soul-competency”, but the idea is still here. But how could it be here? E.Y. Mullins was not around to invent this doctrine out of the ether.

Yes, despite the current academic atmosphere of Baptist Revisionism, the evidence continues to “suggest” otherwise. Indeed, Soul-competency continues to be the overriding Baptist principle and distinctive.

Dr. So-and-so, it doesn’t matter how much you want it or how much you repeat it, Soul-competency will continue to be the historical and over-arching theme of being a Baptist.

Now the Conservative Resurgence has done a very good job of revising Baptist History and denominational knowledge away from those particular doctrines that did not conform to the goals and principles of the Resurgence.

Freedom of Religion
Separation of Church and State
Believer’s Baptism
Priesthood of the Believer
Local Church Autonomy

Sorry to burst your bubble guys. That goes for you Calvinists as well.

Sorry, Dr. Mohler. Keep studying.



Soul Competency, Baptist Revisionism, and Inerrancy

The Problem With The Baptist Faith and Message

What is the purpose of the BFM? Supposedly to confess what the SBC believes about particular Biblical subjects. However, now we are debating about the meaning of the BFM. Soon we will need a new confession to confess what the SBC believes about the BFM.

To know what does the BFM says about this issue (or any issue), it would be best to look at the writings of its authors when they composed it (i.e., E.Y. Mullins, H.H. Hobbs, etc.). Of course, they all don’t agree on what it means. But since the BFM2000 does not alter much of the BFM1963, then we should probably focus on Hobb’s intention. Of course, since Hobbs was a “student” of Mullins and Mullins composed the first BFM, perhaps we should focus first on Mullin’s intention in the BFM1924 and then temper that with the updated BFM1963 by Hobbs. Of course, Mullins is no longer respected in today’s SBC and both the composers of the 2000BFM and other SBC leaders blame Mullins for the “moderate” SBC. And Hobbs is also no longer appreciated because he is held responsible by many SBC leaders and 2000BFM composers for neo-orthodoxy in the SBC and the problems deemed inherent in the BFM1963 which made necessary the composition of the BFM2000.

However, since each confession was confirmed by majority vote of the SBC messengers to each of the respective “confessional conventions”, then perhaps we should look at how the messengers who voted on the BFM understood the issues when they voted their approval. Of course, then we have to decide which groups of messengers we should focus: SBC messengers in 1924, SBC messengers in 1963 or SBC messengers in 2000?

Whatever the focus of our inquiry on what the BFM says, we are still basing how we practice our faith on the unknown whims of a mostly unknown minority of people on one day in history.

Of course, since the current prologue states that “confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience” then this whole issue is moot.

Evolution, the Gospel, and the Baptist Press

Recently I have been tackling the issue of Evolution and Fundamentalistic Christianity. Actually, I have been wrestling with this issue for years now. Up until recently my focus has been on the belief that evolution and conservative Christianity are incompatible subjects. Since I believe that this is not the case I have sought to change the conservative Christian mindset on this subject. While I am in no way desiring that people should hold to evolution as I do, I do desire that conservative Christians at least allow other Christians to hold the theory of evolution without referring to them as liberal, errantists, or , even worse, unbelievers. This has been my goal.

However, two other aspects of this issue have gained my focus:

First, I am amazed that so many of our conservative leaders and scholars devote so much time to this issue. With all the problems in this world and in this country, it somewhat amazes me that people can spend so much time on this subject. Then again, what am I doing?

Perusing the various conservative leaders’ work on this subject, many of them see evolution as the source (or, at least, excuse) for all of modern life’s problems. Such is not the case but that is what many appear to believe publicly.

However, among the SBC leaders there have been two reasons given that we all should dislike about evolution. The first reason was given during the early days of the fundamentalist movement. Evolution was called a lie because it reduced man’s importance to the level of animal and denied he was made in the image of God. Such was not the case and this argument dropped by the wayside as the old fundamentalists did. However, the resurgence of fundamentalists into the SBC leadership under the dubious issue of biblical inerrancy precipitated a “revival” of the fundamentalist attack on evolution. This time the theory that had gained wide acceptance by the overwhelming majority of believers (including the majority of conservative believers) was being attacked on the basis of being contrary to the Bible, therefore, all who believed in evolution believed the Bible to be erring. Such was not the case but there you are. Now we are seeing a barrage of fundamentalist books and news stories articulating to the public and all the other Bible-believing Christians that evolution is contrary to the revealed Scriptures of the Creator.

The second aspect of this issue that has amazed me is one that has only recently come upon me.

Whenever I discuss this issue with other seminarians who are surprised at my belief in evolution and Biblical inerrancy, they almost always ask how I can agree with a theory that argues that man is not created in God’s image. I usually answer that I do not believe that the theory of evolution does contradict the revealed truth that humans are made in God’s image.

Yes, reasons Christians give for being against evolution are many: inerrancy, “miracle” creation, image of God … okay, the reasons are three. But there is one reason to be against evolution that I never hear from conservative Christians. Yes, I do have one problem with the theory of evolution that it is currently espoused.

In college, I read a book by William Golding called The Inheritors.

In this book, eight Neanderthals encounter another race of beings like themselves, yet strangely different. This new race, Homo sapiens, fascinating in their skills and sophistication, terrifying in their cruelty, sense of guilt, and incipient corruption, spell doom for the more gentle folk whose world they will inherit.

Now the subtle yet subversive point of this book is its title derived from the Bible, Matthew 5:5; this is the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.’

Yes, there is a real problem with the current theory of evolution that argues for “the survival of the fittest”. Now I happen to believe that there is a way around this problem but there is still an idea in our world that the strong inherit the earth. Now I do not necessarily blame Darwin for this belief. The history of humanity (and its pre-history) suggests that this world is run by the aggressive use of force. Darwinism did not event “survival of the fittest”; it merely found a naturalistic basis for it.

Yet, as the Sermon on the Mount illustrates, the kingdom of heaven is not of this world and is based on laws and rules and commandments at antithesis to the rules of this world. The kingdom is based on peace, meekness, patience, joy, love, poverty and such a kingdom comes at a snails pace but lasts for eternity. This world is based on war, brute force, impatience, misery, hate, wealth and such a world comes quick but lasts only a moment. The kingdom of God is totally at odds with this world and this is the good news. The Kingdom of Heaven has come and is coming and was inaugurated by the coming of its king, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ-figure, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Incarnated God-Man, and the kingdom will find its perfection when Jesus returns. The Kingdom of God IS the Gospel. And the fact that the kingdom of heaven was based on meekness and the like was foolishness to the Greek mind and a stumbling block to the Jews. Yet there it is.

And it is still foolishness to this world and much of the Church. It is amazing, ironic and sad that the most famous use of the rules of the Kingdom of God were applied by the Hindus and Muslims of India under Gandhi.

The most famous American example was by Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Jr.

Unfortunately, King appears to have been the last prominent liberal Christian to use the kingdom method. From the 19th century onward (and particularly today), the liberal wing of the American Church is more interested in pushing forward their agenda and the kingdom by means at odds with the kingdom. Very ironic.

And, unfortunately, much of the conservative wing of the American Church has never taken an interest using the kingdom methods. Each time the conservative churches have moved toward the kingdom of God, the fundamentalist wing has taken over and pulled them back. It is interesting that the conservative resurgence leaders used the most worldly of methods to get their way and now are trying, like the liberal churches, to push their vision of the kingdom upon the American culture. And it is failing as well.

Both groups suffer from impatience and the unwillingness to let the “foolish” methods of the kingdom bring the kingdom to this world. Unfortunately, the kingdom can only come by means of the kingdom. All other methods will fail.

Watching the fundamentalist leadership’s efforts of using brute force and overwhelming power to effect change for the kingdom of God is both sad and disheartening. It is painful to see people who are certainly believers and certainly members of the kingdom of God use the most un-gospel-like methods to proclaim the gospel … if, in fact, they do know what the gospel is.

So it does not surprise me at all that most conservatives do not see “survival of the fittest” as a problem with evolution. Most conservatives don’t see “survival of the fittest” as a problem with the gospel! The last 40 years of Southern Baptist History seems to suggest as much.

All of this is to say that I wanted to know how many articles in the chief Southern Baptist Convention news and propaganda outlet, the Baptist Press, mentions the subject of “evolution.” I was under the impression that they mention the subject a lot. It appears that at least once a week some article out of Southern Seminary will be about the evils of evolution. So I researched the past five years of the Baptist Press and found that they only mention evolution in Evolution – 250 articles. So, yeah, about once a week.

...

Then I thought … hmm, how many articles has the Baptist Press mentioned other subjects in the past five years.

For example:

How many articles mention the “gospel”? 4269

How many articles mention Jesus? 6339

How many articles mention Faith? 6008

How many articles mention God? 10851

How many articles mention the Bible? 5215

How many articles mention the Kingdom? 1699

How many articles mention Salvation? 1598

How many articles mention Grace? 1546

How many articles mention Sin? 1264

How many articles mention Evil? 766



So that’s all interesting, but ...


How many articles mention Abortion? 1232

How many articles mention Homosexuality? 885

How many articles mention Poverty? 370

How many articles mention the Supreme Court? 1352

How many articles mention Judge? 1148

How many articles mention the Courts in general - 2220



Interesting where our priorities are located, but …


How many articles mention Republicans? 745

How many articles mention Democrats? 502



Okay, but ...


How many articles mention the Resurgence? 217

How many articles mention Liberal? 791

How many articles mention Conservative? 1386

How many articles mention Moderate? 341




But we are a Christian group standing on the shoulders of giants, so ...



How many articles mention Luther? 223

How many articles mention Calvin? 129

How many articles mention Barth? 8

How many articles mention Augustine? 50

How many articles mention Kierkegaard? 2

How many articles mention Niebuhr? 6

How many articles mention Darwin? 76



Okay, let’s delve a bit deeper ...


How many articles mention Dr. Al Mohler? 709

How many articles mention Dr. XXXXXX? 678

How many articles mention Dr. XXXXXX? 38

How many articles mention Judge Paul Pressler? 61

How many articles mention Bobby Welch? 330

How many articles mention Rick Warren? 384

How many articles mention John Piper? 72



I won’t interpret this data; you can do that on your own. I am just relieved that evolution is not as big an issue as I feared. That’s good news.