I am deeply saddened by the resignation from Reformed Theological Seminary of Dr. Bruce Waltke, renowned evangelical Old Testament scholar. Apparently Dr. Waltke felt compelled to resign from the seminary after he stated on a video clip that he felt if evangelical churches don’t come to terms with data overwhelmingly in favor of the reality of biological evolution, it will face a crisis of not really interacting with the world and “not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of awareness.”
His statements seem to be stating the obvious to many Christians in science. But the fact that the seminary was so upset over these statements that Dr. Waltke felt he had to give up his job over this, because of his desire to honor and protect the seminary, and that the seminary felt compelled to accept his resignation, is extremely disturbing. Whether or not one agrees with Waltke’s views, his sudden departure speaks of fear and defensiveness on the part of evangelical leadership, rather than reasoned and appreciative engagement. Dr. Waltke has written some clarifying statements to reiterate his orthodox views regarding the the inerrancy of Scripture and the historical Adam and Eve, and to reaffirm his belief that an evolutionary process of God’s creation is entirely in line with these views. Nevertheless, as of this writing, the outcome for his seminary professorship has not changed.
What message does this send to seminarians trying to understand the full spectrum of beliefs about harmonizing Scriptural interpretation with scientific discovery amongst committed Christian scholars? What message does this send to young Christians in science, or those considering entering the study of science, wanting to explore nature freely? How can scientists and theologians and clergy better understand one another, if there is a real fear of losing one’s job as a penalty for open discussion? What message does this send to non-Christians regarding the Truth-seeking of believers?
And how can Christian institutions retain a confessional faith identity while yet nurturing and encouraging honest and open scholarship and dialogue?
For more background, see articles in USA Today, BioLogos, and the Gospel Coalition.
Jennifer Wiseman
The issue of the relationship between science and faith is brought sharply into question by Waltke’s resignation. Though any seminary has the right to decide on the statement of faith and beliefs to which their faculty should adhere, the underlying issue behind Waltke’s resignation is the degree to which faith commitments take precedence over academic inquiry, especially those in science. The RTS, not unlike many seminaries, is not comfortable with serious consideration of scientific data and results if they are seen to be in conflict with their faith position, as they appear to be with evolution.
In the opposite corner, we have the case cited recently by Christianity Today in which Trinity Western University was called out by a Canadian accreditation committee for restricting academic freedom simply by having a statement of faith. In their view, academic inquiry, presumably especially scientific pursuits, should take precedence over any statement of faith of any kind. This committee is not comfortable with any religious or secular commitment that might, even in principle, limit academic freedom of inquiry.
Those of us interested in the integration of science and Christian faith ought to be greatly concerned about both extremes. Can a restriction on our faith ever be justified by the need for academic freedom? Should our faith commitment ever be allowed to limit the honest pursuit and discussion of academic research, particularly scientific results? How can we reconcile academic freedom and unrestricted scientific inquiry with our faith? On one hand, if our statement of faith makes no reference to physical reality, then of what relevance is it? On the other hand, if our statement of faith dictates a description of reality, how can we avoid setting up a test of faith through scientific observation? Can our faith-based knowledge enhance our scientific knowledge? Can our scientific knowledge substantiate our faith? What do we do when there is honest conflict? These are critical issues for us in the ASA. One of our functions is to pursue an understanding of these issues, both through a thorough investigation of the scientific results and through a deeper understanding of our Christian faith.
Our prayer is that we can provide an environment of open and candid discussion of these difficult issues in a context of Christian love without fear of unjust condemnation.
What happened to Dr Waltke is not good news for the future of Christian scholarship. His seminary is entitled to draw its theological boundaries wherever it seems best to do so, but in my opinion they have acted incautiously, with insufficient attention to the real danger that Galileo pointed out 400 years ago, in his “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.” Galileo was concerned that theologians might label as heretical a well-supported scientific hypothesis that might prove to be true. The evidence supporting human evolution, especially genetic evidence, seems very strong. It is difficult for me imagine how much more evidence it would take, in order to convince Dr Waltke’s colleagues that greater latitude ought to be given for theological and hermeneutical exploration on this important topic.
A couple of years ago, I published an essay entitled, “Galileo and the Garden of Eden: Historical Reflections on Creationist Hermeneutics,” in Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present, ed. Jitse M. van der Meer and Scott H. Mandelbrote, 2 vols. (Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008), vol. 2, pp. 437-64. ( http://www.brill.nl/Default.aspx?partid=75&pid=31539 )
The article compares the following responses to Galileo’s use of the principle of accommodation in his “Letter to Christina”:
(a) that of Roberto, Cardinal Bellarmine, who rejected Galileo’s views
(b) that of certain reformed theologians in early modern Europe, who also rejected Galileo
(c) that of modern geocentrists (Gerardus Bouw is the number one example), who entirely reject accommodation in all forms
(d) that of modern creationists who are not geocentrists, who don’t really like Galileo and who push the illegitimacy of the “historical” sciences in order to keep Galileo out of the garden of Eden
All of this is relevant to understanding what happened to Dr. Waltke. The particular context in which his ideas were being evaluated (RTS in Orlando) is closely related to the PCA–a denomination which a few years ago gave very serious consideration to requiring the YEC view on the part of elders (including teaching elders, i.e., pastors). Some of the people who were pushing that view had even been involved in advancing geocentrism a few years earlier, but I don’t think has been a factor recently. This is the same seminary where R.C. Sproul (a convert rather late in his career from old-earth to young-earth creationism) once taught; it is also part of the same cluster of seminaries as RTS in Charlotte, where creationist Douglas Kelly (who influenced Sproul) teaches.
I see a very similar, and highly disturbing, parallel between what happened to Dr. Waltke and what happened a couple of years ago to Peter Enns at Westminster Theological Seminary and what has also just happened to Tremper Longman, a former faculty member at Westminster who has been “disinvited” from his role as adjunct faculty member at RTS over a video in which he questions the historicity of Adam. It is striking that, if one had drawn up a list a few years ago of the three best Old Testament scholars from the reformed evangelical community, the whole list might have been these three names (I won’t get into suggesting alternative lists). This pretty much shows me, unfortunately, that it might not be possible henceforth to do really serious Old Testament scholarship from within that community. The inability of the evangelical community (whether reformed or not) to do the hard hermeneutical work that needs to be done, relative to science since the end of the 18th century, is an ongoing source of frustration. I talked about this at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.html
The kind of rigid orthodoxy evident in these three cases (Waltke, Enns, and Longman) reminds me disturbingly of the kind of rigid orthodoxy that confronted Galileo. Galileo’s use of Augustine’s principle of accommodation resonates with Enns’ views on biblical inspiration, Longman’s views on an historical Adam, and Waltke’s understanding of inerrancy. The more I follow the modern origins controversy (which I’ve followed for more than 30 years), the more I am convinced of the ongoing relevance–and great importance–of taking Galileo very seriously. His “Letter to Christina” is IMO the single most important text on biblical interpretation, relative to science, that has ever been written. Ignoring its insights can only imperil the truth.
The other posters have said much of what I would have written. The issue here does raise questions about how/where to draw theological boundaries. Mind you, the points Randy raises illustrate that (at least in Canada) freedom of inquiry is not so straightforward from the secular perspective either.
Jennifer, Thanks for your post. Bruce Waltke was one of the scholarly heroes in the world that I grew up in. My father studied at Dallas Seminary in the 60’s, and he often talked of his high regard for Dr. Waltke.
The fact that the ’seminary felt compelled to accept his resignation, is extremely disturbing’, but maybe not all that surprising. Working as I do in a secular academic setting, it is easy to forget that there is a large part of the evangelical church that has identified the evolution issue as an area where no compromise is possible, regardless of what evidence is found. Waltke is exactly right that ‘if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world’. A part of the church will choose to hide from the evidence, and it is a very difficult question to decide what to do about it. Many of these people are members of my extended family or childhood friends. It feels like the neo-evangelical movement of the last half of the 20th century is slowly reliving the fundamentalist-modernist split of the beginning of the 20th century.
Wow. Bruce Waltke is probably one of the most respected conservative scholars living today. If anyone has heard his lectures, though he may not be the most entertaining speaker, you will know that he has the combination of a talented mind along with a tender, pastoral heart. This is tragic. I wonder if Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, that great old Princeton stalwart defender of inerrancy (and friend of evolution), would be able to pass muster today at some of our evangelical seminaries.
It’s interesting how many people were upset when Guillermo Gonzalez lost his tenure battle at Iowa State, but how few seem to care about Peter Enns or Bruce Waltke. I always thought being an evangelical meant taking the Bible seriously – wherever that may lead. Unfortunately, as others have noted, the fundamentalist view seems to be winning over the evangelical one. Thus, literalism, inerrancy, and YEC seem to be dominating. How many of us feel free to talk about our views with friends at church? How many of us would question our pastor about the historicity of Adam and Eve? Forget about evolution – no one will bring that up at church! Are those of us with a scientific background the only ones who care enough to read the Bible closely and analytically, and want to integrate its view with that of science? Frankly, I’m tired of fluffy sermons which avoid the real issues and simpy preserve theological views from a half millenium ago.
Being a member of the ASA and a graduate of RTS, my heart is close to the discussion at hand, though I do not have any inside information. I will say that at RTS I have listened to and profited from lectures by professors who hold a variety of hermeneutical perspectives on Genesis.
That being said, lest the rhetoric become overly charged, Bruce Waltke has posted a letter here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/04/12/updates-from-waltke-and-from-rts/
In it, Dr. Waltke states that his reason for submitting his resignation was not to protest RTS confessionalism, but because his handling of the video and that of Biologos subjected RTS to controversy.
I too am saddened that such a brilliant scholar should feel it necessary to leave my alma mater, but some of the accusations being posted in the blogosphere are bringing more heat than light to the issue.
After reading the correspondence, I’m not inclined to think this was the sort of academic lynching that some blog posts are claiming. Nevertheless it seems to me that an opportunity to bring the evangelical and Reformed theology into dialogue with contemporary scientific evidence has been, if not lost, then at the very least diminished.
The conversation needs to take place. Any evangelical or other Christian theology which thinks it has to avoid certain areas of scientific inquiry belies a sub-Christian commitment to truth – but I don’t really think this is the case at RTS. Reformed Theology has a high view of God’s sovereignty, but also needs to have the courage of its convictions, that theology need not fear to follow truth wherever it might lead, with full confidence that truth – whether theological or scientific – can only and ever honor God.
If scientific evidence raises theological difficulties or challenges, then we need to bring them out, investigate them, ponder them, wrestle with them, but always in search of truth. I sincerely hope that RTS will continue to live up to its motto, “A mind for truth, a heart for God.” Time will tell.
Prof. Waltke’s commentary on Genesis published in 2001 was one of the books I used in researching my book, Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham. Although he showed an awareness of the ancient Near East material corroborating Genesis, I felt he was reluctant to use it. He buried a mention of the Legend of Adapa, which has 16 comonalities with the biblical Adam, in the introduction and said nothing further about it.
I was a little disappointed and thought he could have done more in that regard, showing some of the similarities between Genesis and ANE literature, and I emailed him some pertinent information from my own research that I thought he could have included in his commentary.
When my own book was published in 2008 I sent him a copy and emailed him a couple of questions that arose from one of the many encounters we had on the ASA listserv to which he replied in February of 2009: “I have been reading your book slowly with profit and will need to reflect more on your inquiries.”
What influence my book may have had on his post on the Biologos web site I will never know, but it reflected a position much closer to mine than was evident in his Genesis commentary.
In one respect I hope it wasn’t my influence that helped put gears in motion leading toward his resignation, but I can’t help but feel my input may have been one of the nucleotides in a long DNA sequence of information leading to his recent published position and the left foot of fellowship from Reformed Theological Seminary.
Waltke is gracious to blame the way he and BioLogos handled the video. Certainly he has handled his departure from RTS in a manner that should enable RTS to avoid damage. But I respectfully disagree with Waltke’s assertion that BioLogos and he himself are to blame. Sure, in hindsight one can always wish to have anticipated and proactively parried more of the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of his views. But I think the blame lies squarely with those who reacted to Waltke’s video with such knee-jerk alarm, fear, and indignant hostility. I’m thankful that Waltke was immediately contacted about another position at another seminary, not only for his sake, but also for the sake of countless others deciding whether it’s safe to speak truthfully, even within Christ’s church.
[...] was trying to comment on Randy’s post regarding Bruce Waltke , but it didn’t let me click the Reply link. I think a new post would be better [...]