1. I’m not Presbyterian & so am a little confused about all the different groups. I know you guys (along with the baptists) were the key 2 denominations that split during the fundy/liberal row in the 20’s. Do you have a brief overview of where the PCA fits in with, for eg. the Orthodox Presbyterians & the other myriads of Presbyterians?

2. I checked out the PCA creation statement, and it says that:

“In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth* ex nihilo*; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life).”

How rigorously is this applied in your denomination? Would a minister that subscribes to common descent be removed from office? Are you personally taking a risk wrt your own church membership with the publishing of your book & your blog?

Steve

The PCA split from the PCUSA around the 60’s (I think). Basically, the PCUSA is liberal, the PCA is conservative. The OPC is slightly more liturgical than the PCA, and on average, less seeker-friendly — but still theologically conservative. The EPC is also very conservative theologically, but it allows women to serve as elders and embraces elements of charismatic theology.

The sentence that you quote from the report shows just how “inside the traditional box” this study of the creation days was. For instance, there is absolutely nothing in Genesis that would have caused a Hebrew to formulate a doctrine of Creation was ex nihilo. There is a one-sentence introduction telling us that we are about to read a creation narrative, and then we start with earth as an empy waste. “Ex nihilo” was not even an ANE concept that would have made any sense. Matter was universally believed to have always existed and nothing in Genesis would have changed that fundamental belief. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND — the Bible certainly teaches Creation ex-nihilo — BUT JUST NOT IN GENESIS! These ideas can be found in other places, like Collosians 1, etc… The Hebrew in the wilderness would not have read ex-nihilo out of the creation narrative. This just demonstrates how easy it is to bring baggage to Genesis.

Interestingly, the idea that Adam and Eve are the biological parents of all humanity is also not explicity demamded by a face-value reading of the text, but is an assumption one brings to the text based on the theology of original sin extending to all men (which we learn from other passages). Original sin is obviously an important Christian doctrine upon which God’s unfolding Covenant of Grace rests. It is also a difficult problem for evolutionary biology (the subject of my current writing project). But a face-value reading of the text apart from the rest of Scripture doesn’t necessarily require Adam and Eve to be the biological parents of humanity. Paul makes the strongest case for that years later.

I know that sound rediculous. But it’s possible that other things are happening in the world that are not specifically mentioned in the creation narrative. In fact, we know that Genesis doesn’t tell us everything about creation (planets? galaxies? only plant and animal kingdoms? etc…). The idea that humanity is limited to this one family is an assumption based on the doctrine of original sin — not a straightforward Genesis. There could have been a lot more going on than what Genesis relates. For instance, a plain reading of the text indicates that Cain is the first-born of Adam and Eve, and then Abel. Nobody else is mentioned. After Cain kills Abel he fears for his life as he wanders the countryside. Why? Becasue word will get out about what he did and people will try and avenge Abel’s death. So he flees to another city (Nod) where presumably nobody knows of his crime, takes a wife from there, and settles down. And God assures him that nobody will lay a hand on him.

What? This doesn’t make any sense unless there were either (1) other people around at the time not directly descended from Adam and Eve, or (2) there were many generations of brothers and sisters born before Cain and Abel. Either way, there is more going on with respect to humanity than is specifically told us. This simple fact alone should caution us about making extra-biblical assumptions, even when they are apparently based on good theology (remember Aristotle’s “sacred” cosmology!).

Most people automatically default to option (2) and manipulate the text to insert hundreds of years between the birth of Cain and Abel, and Abel’s murder — allowing for many generations of brothers, sisters, and cousins to build the city of Nod. Ironically, many of these same folks will chop your head off if you try to add anything to the days of creation, but adding many generation before Cain and Abel is driven by the same concept of original sin that is also responsible for an a-priori rejection of common descent strictly on theological grounds. It doesn’t really solve the problem exegetically, but only beggs the question by also assuming that Adam and Eve must be parents of all humanity, which again is not explicity stated in the text. So the question we must ask ourselves, in light of the evidence for common ancestry and the plain reading of Genesis 4 is this: is our traditional concept of original sin accurrate? Do we take a good idea and ruin it by pushing it further than what God intended?

That was the same question that Medieval Christians had to ask themselves when it was suggested that the underside of the earth could be inhabited. However, you know the rest of the story . Nobody could figure out how descendents of Adam could have crossed the equator (the torrid clime) by ship, and no missionaries had been sent down under, and the Bible clearly says that the Gospel had been preached to all people — ergo no people live down there. End of story! Well, sure enough — Magellan found people living in South America that had no idea of Adam or of Christ. But rather than make any adjustments in the doctrine of original sin, many theologians instead concluded that these indigenous peoples were not even human! This of course is pure racism resulting from trying to solve a difficult theological problem. Rather than just admit that our concept of original sin is limited, we would rather jump to a dangerous conclusion about the image of God in tribal people.

If they are not really human, then they don’t have to be physically descended from Adam and Eve! And Paul doesn’t have to being incorrect when he implies that the Gospel had been preached to every kingdom! Creative theologians can fix anything with these ad-hoc assumptions! Problem solved, right? Wrong! We obviously screwed that one up. And our current understanding of the doctrine of original sin is also probably limited. But we still use this doctrine to settle questions of biological ancestry without even looking at the evidence first — without even “sending explorers to check out the distant lands” so to speak. Questions of physical science simply can’t be determined by theology. If that actually worked, we’d still believe in Aristotle’s sacred cosmology! It is much more theologically and exegically correct than Galileo’s universe. These are all topics that I’m covering in my follow-up to BTF, of which you read the first three Chapters/Essays.

Nevertheless, I will probably allways be in the PCA becasue there is still flexibility here to think outside the box (if you are a layman). A few folks in my own congregation have read BTF and we are not outcast for it in any way. I might have a hard time holding office, but I’ve got enough on my plate wihout taking on that kind of responsibility. So I’m happy just to have fellowship with thinking Christians who keep me in check.

GJG

Although I’m not a member, the church we attend is a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination. Although the PCUSA, in general, is somewhat liberal, our particular congregation is very conservative, although not in a fundamentalist sense. It is very Christ-centered and missional.

Here are a few excerpts from the PCUSA’s 1969 statement on evolution and the Bible (http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm):

Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory. Scripture states that “out of the ground” the Lord God formed every beast, Genesis 2:19, and “of the dust of the ground” the Lord God formed man, Genesis 2:7. Genesis 1 teaches that according to the Word of God there came into being Light, Firmament (called Heaven), the Earth and the Seas. Then, God said: “Let the waters bring forth” and “Let the earth bring forth.” After the creation of Light, the Firmament and the Earth, after the Earth and the Waters brought forth plant, aquatic and animal life, then God said: “Let us make man.” This man, Adam, meaning both a man and man, is by nature both individual and corporate. The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation.

It may be that the Westminster Divines understood the “six days” as well as such phrases as “of the dust of the ground” and “the rib of man” in a literal sense; but, as they were merely using the words of Scripture with no intention to argue the theory of evolution (of which they had never heard), we are free to interpret their words in a different sense, just as we now do the words of Scripture.

Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

We re-affirm our belief in the uniqueness of man as a creature whom God has made in His own image.

So, Gordon, you may want to think about switching denominations.

I agree with that statement. It makes a lot of sense. For now, I’m happy to remain PCA — even if my views of creation might fit better with PCUSA. The PCA needs folks like me!

Thanks for checking in!
Gordon

We’re getting ready to move to Monterey, CA, and I’m hoping we can find a theologically conservative church that allows for freedom in matters of origins and eschatology. Our previous church was great in that respect, but the internal divisions and back-biting politics made it spiritually unhealthy to stay. Ironically, we found a temporary home in the PCUSA church, a denomination with which I disagree on a number of doctrines; the life of the church, however, abounds with the Spirit of God and much of the interpersonal bickering is nowhere to be found. I’d rather attend a YEC/Dispy church that follows the Spirit than an TE/Preterist church that is characterized by rotten fruit.

My comment about Revelation at the end of the post was just for you! Even though preterism is not the focus of my ministry, I do think that the same mindset that causes folks to trip over Revelation also causes them to trip over Genesis. Basically, people read the text as if written directly to them — rather than TO THEM VIA a distant audience with a completely different set of presuppositions and concerns.

GJG

Further in your article you say the “creation of the cosmos had little to do with God building things, and everything to do with God assigning function and purpose to that which was formless and void.” This seems to be essentially what the Literary Framework view advocates. The first three days God is “forming” the formless and the final three he is “filling” the void.

You also advocate that the Bible is not in conflict with science since it is consistent with the “science” of the ancient near east. I can’t back up their research, but I found from some ‘googling,’ that the Framework view is consistent with ancient near eastern philosophy.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm

“There was a pattern in the ancient Near East of a perfect work being completed in six days with a seventh day of rest. The six days were divided into three groups of two days each.”

“So, a completely harmonious account of creation, in accord with other ancient examples of similar schemes in the literature of that time, and using the rules of style in ancient epic poetry and narrative prose of the ancient Near East, would be the parallel form of symmetry found in Genesis 1.”

“The Genesis author was simply writing in the ‘politically-correct’ cosmogenic and prose-narrative style of that day. Thus, the Genesis 1 text was not meant to represent a sequential order of creation or one that needs to fit with modern science. It was simply the literary way that writers of that day wrote down their narrative thoughts.”

It sounds like this author who holds to the Framework view has very similar conclusions as your own even though you conclude that the Framework theory is “dangerously undermine[s] the authority of the biblical text.”

PS: I agree with everything you had to say in your videos and look forward to reading your book. I just think the Framework view is consistent with your interpretations and not at odds with it.

My criticism here would be more approapriately aimed at the Comittee’s treatment of the Framework view rather than the view itself. I’m glad you brought this up because I’m sure others had the same reaction but just didn’t comment.

I hope you enjoy the book!

GJG

It is a little different for me, being in leadership in my local church and in the network of churches we belong to. My views must be taken into account, and dealt with at all levels. The road has been rocky, but seem to have taken some positive turns of late.

I often wonder where the theologically conservative church will line up on all these issues 15 years from now. And what needless ruin may lie in our wake.

Your post restates your BTF thesis more fully and with clarity. It is helpful to set ourselves in the historical context of the first readers of Genesis. You help us to do just that. I am looking forward to your follow-up book. I just received my fifth or sixth copy of BTF. I keep “loaning” them out, and replacing my own copy!

You’ve hit the nail on the head. In fact, your situation is sort of what inspired me to start this next project. Also, if you read the Amazon reviews on all the books coming out on Evolution and Christianity, authors get low scores for two reasons: (1) because the reviewer doesn’t agree with evolution, or (2) because the author avoided the theological problems of evolution — such as original sin and death before the fall. In fact, my one 4-star review on Amazon.ca was because I choose not to really tackle those types of issues. But those are the issues that threaten to tear the Church apart. Hence the focus of my next book.

GJG

Keep a sharp eye out for Denis Lamoreaux’s new book Evolutionary Creation: An Evangelical Approach to Evolution, due out any week now. You will find it a rich source of ideas for your own project.

You may be familiar with Lamoreaux’s work already, but here’s a very informative recent podcast interview with the man:

http://www.themeetinghouse.ca/roundtable/roundtable14.mp3