The response of ASA members to the resignation of Bruce Waltke from RTS prompts me to write this. Perhaps I am mis-reading my fellow ASAers, but it seems that there is little grasp of a divide that occurred in evangelicalism over forty years ago–a divide that continues to this day as I see it. This is a response in part as well to comments of Ted Davis and George Murphy to my post about Eugenie Scott’s visit to CSU.
The divide is over the distinction between inerrancy and what we might call limited inerrancy. Inerrantists, as defined by the Chicago statement, regard those who do not hold to this view as “neo-evangelicals”. The view of Rodgers, McKim, Bloesch, Pinnock, etc. would be in this camp. While these theologians may be theologically conservative compared to full-blown liberal theology on some key questions, e.g. the Trinity, Christology, the atonement, justification by faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc., as far as inerrantists are concerned, they are with the liberals as a consequence of their doctrine of scripture. These individuals and their associated institutions are not evangelicals–they are neo-evangelicals.
It is clear that the ASA as a whole is on the neo-evangelical side of this divide. Perhaps, even, the ASA helped pioneer this view with the writings of Richard Bube in the Journal of the ASA in the 1970’s. Paul Seely (among others) provided the Biblical scholarship arguments for this. Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible documents this from a highly critical perspective, and, while I don’t necessarily agree with all of Lindsell’s story, it makes the point. Today’s ASA remains in this camp for the most part. Lamoureux, Seely, Enns, N.T. Wright, etc., either ASAers or favorite theologians of ASAers, are among the ranks of Rodgers, McKim, Bloesch, Pinnock, etc. on the doctrine of Scripture. Biologos.org and those directly associated with it are in this camp as is evident from their books and the way that they address the science/Scripture problem.
What may surprise ASAers is that the conservative Reformed camp embodied in denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and institutions such as the Westminster Theological Seminaries, Covenant College, Covenant Seminary, and the various Reformed Theological Seminaries are on the more conservative end of this evangelical/neo-evangelical or inerrancy/limited inerrancy spectrum. There are other denominations and institutions that we would not necessarily label “fundamentalist” that would also be at the conservative end of the spectrum–I’m thinking here of places like Wheaton College. A significant group of ASA members and even leaders are from these denominations and institutions or are strongly influenced by them.
In these institutions to move from the evangelical to the neo-evangelical camp usually means losing one’s job if you are a pastor, college professor, or seminary professor. In making this move you have abandoned a key aspect of the modern conservative evangelical and Reformed faith. Witness the events surrounding Peter Enns at Westminster Seminary.
So what to make of the response to Bruce Waltke? The historicity of Adam and Eve and the Fall is a marker of adherence to the evangelical doctrine of Scripture. Most even go further and make the advocacy of any sort of animal ancestry of Adam or his body to be impossible in the inerrantist perspective. Thus, the reaction to Waltke (and in my opinion a similar fate awaits Tim Keller) for his comments at Biologos. Now for the record I believe that it is possible to maintain an evangelical/inerrantist perspective and to entertain evolutionary ideas, extending even to aspects of human evolution. I believe that both Waltke and Keller do this. If you read their contributions to Biologos carefully, you will see that there is no hesitation to affirm the evangelical/inerrantist view of scripture or to affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Fall. We see this as well in the early 20th century theologian B. B. Warfield. In some respects, Waltke and Keller are finding common ground with neo-evangelicals on these evolution questions at the risk of their reputations as evangelicals.
So why do I engage in this “splitting” (as opposed to “lumping”) activity? Those of us in the ASA in the “evangelical” camp (in contrast with the “neo-evangelical” camp) are fully aware that the ASA is a big-tent organization, especially on this issue. While I can only speak for myself, I suspect that there are others with similar qualms. We are very uneasy with the “neo-evangelical” approaches to scripture/science questions. These approaches will not work in our churches or institutions. Thus, when we use Lamoureux or Collins or Falk or Enns, we have to qualify them, if we use them at all. They often provide good discussions of the science from the theistic perspective; they often point to acceptable ways of reading scripture on some issues (age of the earth, days of Genesis, the Flood, etc.) but often intermingled with these, especially when we start talking about human origins and the Fall, are what we regard to be compromising claims about the character of Scripture.
ASA members, especially those at the neo-evangelical end of the spectrum, should know that they are only preaching to the choir when they root their arguments in a neo-evangelical view of scripture. While some advocate that young-earth creationism is the only consistent inerrantist position, it is clearly not the case. However, arguments for evolution and human evolution need to be cast into an inerrantist perspective in order to be made convincing. This, of course, is a much trickier enterprise. Some ASA members seem oblivious to this divide and in doing so seem surprised when it becomes important. Their ignorance of or indifference to this divide muddles the conversation.
Alternatively, the ASA could just say that these inerrantist/evangelicals have their heads buried in the sand and that the “neo-evangelical” view of scripture IS the basis for a correct understanding of science/Scripture issues. This is largely what the ASA has done with young-earth creationism in practice. In the heyday of the fundamentalist/Modernist debate in the early 20th century, J. G. Machen in Christianity and Liberalism argued that in reality there were two irreconcilable and competing views of Christianity here–two different religions even. The evangelical world (in contrast to the neo-evangelical world) would argue similarly today. ASA could decide to play on only one side of this divide, but if we do, let’s fully understand what we are doing. When we call evangelicals to become neo-evangelicals, it is like asking them to change religions.
Gordon said:
“Bernie says that the Bible is wrong in some places about morals. One cannot make such an assertion unless he has some standard by which to judge what is moral or not. He must be judging one standard by another one. How does he determine which standard is the superior one? ”
Hi Gordon, as a believer, I think you are operating under the ‘divine command theory’ of ethics. God said what is moral or immoral, so you can’t judge. If God said rape is ok, you can’t judge. Now if you can judge morals for yourself without God’s decree as to what is immoral or not, then we can discuss things based on ethical reasons, such as principles of reciprocity and consequences. Is there any possible discussion with a believer regarding ethics, or is it just moral because God said so?
And if you define morals as a system of right and wrong behavior, with punishment due to bad behavior, then is is becoming increasingly obvious with modern philosophical ethical research on animals that they have morals. They show empathy. They rebuke and discipline those who break their societal code. We are also societal animals, although much more advanced cognitively. Here’s a fascinating book I’m now reading on the subject:
“Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton Science Library)”
http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477
…Bernie
(Friend of the ASA)
Bernie,
We decide whether something is morally right or wrong based on the system of morals that we accept. We shouldn’t necessarily expect to agree with someone else as to whether some act is morally right or wrong if we don’t agree on how one goes about deciding what is moral or immoral in the first place. Questions of morality are likely to be of more vital significance to one who bases his answers on Christian conviction rather than just on what helps him and others to coexist happily.
Gordon Brown
Gordon said:
“Questions of morality are likely to be of more vital significance to one who bases his answers on Christian conviction…”
“Convictions” are the basis for moral reasoning? Actually, many modern moral philosophers are saying something quite similar; that morals are derived from emotions and then later people try to rationally justify them.
Here’s an article I like from Prof. Steven Picker, which explains more about the philosophy of morals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
…Bernie
(Friend of the ASA)
John, thank you for comment and sorry about the long delay in responding. We had a daughter graduating from high school and the related activities were non-stop for a couple of week.
First of all, I’m not necessary willing to say that the Chicago Statement embodies all the subtlety that I’m after or that I see in the Warfield/Westminster position. However, it’s a useful starting point. You may not be familiar with all of these characters but Westminster seminary professors like Ray Dillard, Harvie Conn, Richard Gaffin, Robert Strimple, etc. were all signatories of the Chicago Statement. Dillard and Conn. Conn was the editor of the Inerrancy and Hermeneutics book that I referred to earlier. Dillard was an expert in the books of 1 & 2 Chronicles and was quite willing to admit to all the obvious complexities, yet this did not prevent him from signing the Chicago Statement. So apparently, he had more imagination that you do.
Most of your questions can be answered by saying “yes” to your question in paragraph 4 (about the theological character of Biblical history) and by saying that the assertions in the Chicago Statement are not in conflict with this. For example, there was a flood, there was a Noah, there was an ark, etc. These are real historical events, characters, and things. But the Biblical account is highly theologized for the sake of the emphasis on the judgment that God executed in that event. Recognizing this is a key hermeneutical point. Can we “concordize” the flood event with any particular event that historians and archaeologist discuss? Probably not. Must we conclude that the whole human race descends from Noah and his children? Probably not in light of the fundamental theological character of this text. To affirm its fundamental historical character is all that inerrancy requires. (Not that inerrancy requires historicity–if the genre is not history then inerrancy doesn’t demand that it be understood as history–but it seems to me, and many more conservative leaning scholars that Genesis as a whole has a fundamental historical character.)
I’ve written elsewhere about how to maintain the fundamental event character of the Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden story in light of modern human evolutionary studies.
I also want to address a misconception that you seem to have about inerrantists. You say that inerrancy is a presupposition for us. This is wrong. We believe in inerrancy because we think scripture itself teaches inerrancy. If you like we can go into those arguments. When I first studied this matter in some detail a few decades ago, I came to the conclusion that Christianity does not stand or fall with the doctrine of inerrancy, but that the question is simply “What does Scripture say about itself?”
Finally, I want to clarify my purposes in raising this issue. You ask “should ASA be barred from exploring other viewpoints…?” I’m not asking anything of the sort. I’m simply trying to explain to some of us (most of us?) why the more conservative evangelical aren’t listening. I think it’s fully possible to discuss most of these matters without abandoning inerrancy. It’s clear to me that the ASA is a big tent organization that embraces both inerrantists and limited inerrantists. By why are more conservative folks so friendly toward young-earth creationism and seem antagonistic toward theistic creationists. It’s because we “cave in” on the doctrine of scripture from the get-go. We solve the problems by saying that the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science and history. I think that we would be better served if we would put our energy into developing a theistic view of nature (and evolution) rather than seeking to erode the conservative evangelical doctrine of Scripture. Whether we personally are inerrantists or not, we need to figure out how to communicate our pro-science message to conservative evangelical without challenging their view of Scripture.
I can illustrate by commenting on Denis Lamoureux’s approach. Denis and I agree on just about everything, until he says “There is no Adam.” No conservative evangelical (even Bruce Waltke and J. I. Packer) is going to buy that and if Denis roots his basic argument in this claim and the view of Scripture that goes with it, he’s going to fail to make any progress. The fact that many are listening to him reflects the divide that already exists in evangelicalism. The only people listening (and this goes for Biologos as a whole) are those who are already limited inerrantists.
Terry,
I’m glad you were able to get back to this dialog.
If there is a significant difference (in your view) between the position of Warfield/Westminster versus the Chicago Statement in the “nuance” with which they express the doctrine of inerrancy, do you know of a good summary of the other position that I could compare with?
I read your blog article that you referenced. Even though I don’t hold any particular commitment to absolute inerrancy, I would still say that your comments very closely resonate with my own. I too am uncomfortable with firm proclamations that “there was no historical Adam”, abandonment of what I see as a Biblical notion of dualism, and the Biblical difficulties that these positions bring in. So I really don’t think we are in disagreement about the fundamental issues related to science and history, except perhaps in the emphasis we might place on various theories of ensoulment, image of God, etc.
We do disagree over whether the Bible itself teaches (i.e. requires) a belief in the absolute inerrancy of the written word of scripture. I am prepared to argue the point that it doesn’t, but I don’t want to go into those arguments now. I see a few places where the Bible *appears* to teach inerrancy, but I see plenty of evidence that it also appears to teach that Adam was the first man and ancestor of all mankind, and that there was a worldwide flood that was universal in extent with regard to humanity and probably geography. You are prepared to argue that the Bible doesn’t *really* intend to teach those things, so we can deal with them hermeneutically and still conclude that those things are not the actual scientific/historical fact. I would argue the same thing about the doctrine of literal inerrancy — that the Bible doesn’t really intend to teach it, even though some may infer it from several passages. However, the reliability of scripture is generally (and correctly) affirmed as being “profitable for doctrine” etc. (2Tim 3:16). This is a far cry from the Chicago Statement that “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” I think there is a lack of creativity here, but it’s on the part of the underlying presumptions about scripture that seem very apparent in the Chicago Statement.
To quote Steve Martin on another post in his blog, “The bible uses some of these scientific ideas to communicate God’s message, but it never tries to teach science. Science and history may be contained in the scripture, but these are not the point of scripture. The purpose of the written Word is to reveal God’s message to humanity, and not to provide a complete history of the world. Its purpose is to reveal how God works in the lives of his people, and not how God’s creation works.” I would go further to say that the point of scripture, the purpose of scripture, was not to have a letter-perfect written text, but to reveal God’s message to humanity. Otherwise, God would have written the Bible in stone with His own finger and dropped it from heaven, and made sure that the original record remained forever untarnished and available for us to read.
Maybe my statement about evangelical “presupposition” of inerrancy was too strong, although I think that’s probably true for most evangelicals who have been taught that Christianity rises or falls on this point, without looking into it for themselves. One of my overall critiques of the doctrine is that those who do apply sufficient “nuance” to reconcile the doctrine of inerrancy with the actual text of scripture and external evidence (science, history, etc.) really end up with “limited inerrancy” at best, but they are unwilling to admit that that’s what they’ve got. They tacitly admit that there are scientific or historical errors in scripture, but write them off as “hermenutics” or “scripture wasn’t really meant to teach accurately about nature here” (when clearly the original authors thought they were), or reinterpret verses contrary to their apparently original meaning, or similar techniques. This makes the intent of scripture arbitrary, subject to the whims of the interpreter. I am willing and interested in engaging in apologetics to defend the truth of scripture wherever I can, so I understand the sentiment. But in the end, the doctrine of inerrancy is not as important as understanding scripture for what God intended it, and to order our lives accordingly.
Finally, I understand your concern about evangelicals not listening when they think their faith is being challenged. Many of my friends and relatives would be quite turned off if they read some of the articles in PSCF without a good knowledge and background of the issues. But I still have to ask what do you want ASA to do about it, in response to your original post? You say, “I think that we would be better served if we would put our energy into developing a theistic view of nature (and evolution) rather than seeking to erode the conservative evangelical doctrine of Scripture.” That is your view, and it is certainly one of the voices within ASA that is important and needs to be expounded and developed. And it is expounded in the pages of PSCF, as members express that viewpoint. But ASA doesn’t represent only that viewpoint, and some members are going to write expounding other differing views. Your concern may be that the overall direction (i.e. percentage?) of ASA members express a different viewpoint, which turns off strict inerrantists, and that we need to “accommodate” the message to the sensitivities of this subset of evangelical Christianity. Others feel differently. Perhaps they feel the better way is to help Christians grow by coming to a more complete and mature understanding of scripture, including understanding limited inerrancy. My question still is, should that viewpoint (for instance) within ASA be minimized or eliminated, so that we don’t turn off orthodox evangelicals? I know you don’t want that, but what else would you like ASA (as a diverse member-led organization) to do?
Sincerely,
Jon Tandy
Terry said:
No- maybe the people who are listening to him are the ones who would have left the faith if it wasn’t for him. This is because with modern science many are coming to know, for sure, there was no biological first-man Adam, as well as no Noah’s ark which saved a bunch of animals from extinction. If it isn’t for Lamoureux providing a way for believers to stay, and still accept the Bible, they will leave the faith; because the evidence is known more now, more than ever.
Terry said:
I agree with Lamoureux there was no ark. The young earth idea of a worldwide flood seems easy to discredit on many scientific facts, as old earthers know. And a local flood doesn’t make sense either, as (for just one reason) there would be no need to save all the birds since they can easily fly to higher ground or to other terrain outside of the local flood zone.
…Bernie
(Friend of the ASA)
Bernard Ramm in the mid 50’s wrote The Christian View of Science and Scripture. It was very accepting of modern science and sought to move Evangelicalism away from the negative approach hich Fundamentalism had toward science. At the same time if affirmed that the science in the Bible was inerrant and that divine inspiration had kept the human writers from afirming the errors of their day. It was thus rejecting the aproach of Lamoureaux, and accepting Terry’s approach. But, what good did it do? It appears that most of those who liked the book were already basically believing what Ramm was saying. and the response of Fundamentalism was not only negative, but resulted directly in the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris, which set Evangelicalism even further behind than before Ramm wrote. So, it appears from the writings of Ramm and other similar Evangelicals over the last 50 years that acceptance of the doctrine of absolute inerrancy does not make any significant difference to Evangelicals who reject modern science.
Greetings! New ASA member Jason Hine here, signing in and hoping to engage in helpful, thought-provoking participation as I jump into what seems to be the deep end of the pool…
Thanks for your original post, Terry, and to all who’ve taken the time to comment. I’ve read through all 5 pages (!!!), and am delighted by the thoughtfulness and passion evident in this dialog.
Terry wrote on May 17:
“ASA has long wondered why it’s so impotent and ineffective among evangelicals. I’m suggesting a reason. As long as we couch our pro-science message in a “compromised” doctrine of Scripture we’re not going to accomplish our goal.”
I agree with Terry’s petition (if this is not too gross a restatement of his delicate point) that, in order to facilitate open dialog, we can and should avoid taking an obvious neo-evangelical stance when engaging in dialogs with our evangelical friends, some of whom are in this big ASA tent with us. The challenge, in my limited experience, is continuing this avoidance throughout the discussion, especially when my friend tries to force my hand. I feel my best possible response in these situations has been to (re)establish some more foundational point of common understanding — for example, the ways in which both my friend and I have experienced the wonderful love of our Blessed Redeemer way down in the depths of our hearts. Sometimes this remembrance will allow my friend and I to relax and continue a productive dialog as common recipients of God’s unexpected and underserved grace. If, however, my friend considers this a “dodge” tactic… well, then I need to ask your advice, as I’ve not found a way to continue productive dialog once my evangelical friend has decided I’m “up to something” and they insist on determining (or guessing) exactly which side of the fence I’m on. Lamoreaux could have stopped short of saying, “There is no Adam,” but I suspect most evangelicals would have easily determined his trajectory and target even if he had not painted it so boldly, and they would have shut their ears to his message regardless.
John Pohl wrote on May 17:
“My concern is that the lack of evangelical Christian thought in the world of science, especially biology, will lead researchers to not have a Christian perspective. Issues such as ethics, respect for human dignity, etc., would be / are at risk.”
While I think Terry’s concerns valid, John’s seems to me somewhat more primary — there are many people who are *not* going to be offended by the neo-evangelical view, and who have many questions on science-faith issues and are eagerly seeking discussions that may lead to insight. At some limit-point, I think it appropriate to curtail the energy I’m putting into trying to maintain open communications with the evangelical friend who insists on finding out which camp I’m in, and divert my attention to communicating with other evangelical friends (not to mention the scientific friends I may have been neglecting) who may less interested in identifying my position and more interested in fruitful discussion and sharing of ideas. This “giving up” seems to me rather callous, but then so does Jesus’ recorded treatment of the religious leaders of his day… and his disturbing teaching to dust off one’s sandals. And just to be fair, I should note that I’ve reached that limit-point with some of my scientific friends, too.
Based on what I’ve read so far, Terry’s observation seems correct: the general approach of ASA conversations is going to be more palatable to scientists than to evangelicals. I think it good to try and identify ways to avoid souring the first taste for *anyone* who visits ASA (and the web site’s home page does seem built with this in mind), but as we sweeten our tone for our evangelical friends, don’t we risk souring it for our scientific ones?
Thanks for the opportunity to participate. I hope this first post adds meaningfully to the discussion, and is reasonably in line with the ASA Blog Policy. Comments and guidance welcome.
Paul said:
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect Ramm or anyone to get everyone to think the same. Any huge movement (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.) is going to have sects, simply because of the vast amounts of people involved. No matter how far science progresses, there will always be young earthers, old earthers, and evolutionary creationists (as well as new groups popping up like DI’s ID).
I love the mental picture of seeing all these ideas as memes fighting it out in a form of natural selection. The ones who will become dominant are the ones most fit the niche (of reality)… survival of the fittest, for meme selection in a society. And these memes are fighting worldwide through the medium of the internet.
I think even atheism is getting big enough to start solidifying into different camps. Evidence of this is in Kurtz’s recent ‘neo-humanist’ manifesto:
http://paulkurtz.net/
…Bernie
(Friend of the ASA)
While I see what Terry is getting at here, I think the ASA also needs to be aware of the mirror image of Terry’s concern.
Yes, if people see the ASA and healthy views of the science/faith relationship as coupled too closely to a rejection of “inerrancy”, many conservative Evangelicals will dismiss us. I remember reading a book by an ASA member a few years ago that I thought had some value, but that I would never recommend to my conservative friends because of its rather dismissive approach to Scripture (more “liberal” than the views of Paul Seely or Pete Enns or Denis Lamoreaux who I would consider moderately conservative in that regard).
But the flip side is that some of us have come to the conclusion that hardline (as opposed to “limited”) inerrancy as typically held is not biblically supported and cannot be maintained with intellectual integrity. It is discouraging to me when I see articles in Perspectives where the author goes through all sorts of convolutions with science and/or Scripture in order to serve his or her presupposition of inerrancy. Terry is an exception – I find that most of the time devotion to inerrancy in these (and other) discussions produces positions that I cannot respect. And I think there are many others like me who find it refreshing that the ASA is a place where we can faithfully explore these issues without being smothered by the environment in much of Evangelicalism that makes un-limited inerrancy a litmus test for orthodoxy.
So if Terry is just suggesting that the ASA refrain from conveying the message that abandoning “inerrancy” is a NECESSARY prerequisite to reconciling science and faith, I would agree.
But if he is suggesting that the ASA make a concerted effort to frame everything so that it works within a context of hardline inerrancy and bend over backwards to avoid tensions with inerrancy, I would contend that such an effort would turn off many thoughtful Christians for whom such a view of Scripture tends to send the message “this is a fundamentalist probably not worth listening to”. There is already at least one organization where a commitment to inerrancy tends to trump the evidence both in Scripture and in nature – and there is a reason I am a member of ASA and not of RTB.