Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution Part I

Hi Folks,

So several weeks back I read a book by Karl Giberson titled Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. Here are my pensees on it...

What I've Discovered:

Traveling the road I’m on - I call it the theologically endowed brick road - I have been discovering more and more that less and less educated Christians, (professionals of some type: scientist, theologians, philosophers et cetera) believe the earth to be much older then the conservative number of 6,000 to 10,000 years.

At first I thought it was just the nuts on the fringes of Christianity who believe in such things has "the Gap theory" or the "Day-Age theory". Ever since one guest preacher came to our church when I was a teenager and strung up bed sheets across the platform, filled with colorful images of an entire "pre-Adamic" race of beings, and a "story-line" to match.

But now I’ve discovered that such "theories" are not uncommon. As a matter of fact, what I’m coming to learn is that by-and-large the only people who still believe the earth to have been created sometime within the past 10,000 years are the "uninformed" average folk (who happen to make up the bulk of the population), or a few blind-faith and often laughing-stock theologians [i.e. Norman Geisler], who make public proclamations that aliens are demonic manifestations; thus losing all credibility within the academic community.

But other Christians, many who are well respected in the academic community (e.g. Greg Boyd, William Hasker, Hugh Ross, Francis Collins, Karl Giberson and Thomas Cahill) believe the earth to be much older then 10,000 years. Ever since the Age of the Enlightenment when the sciences such as geology and archaeology began to point to an "old" earth, Christians have been attempting to reconcile these "facts" with the Bible, and thus sprang into existence two new "theories" among the elite: the Gap Theory and the Day-Age theory.

Both of the aforementioned views seek to explain how it is the earth can be much older then the chronology of the bible allows for, while at the same time holding to an interpretation of Genesis that presents a Creator God and the exclusiveness and fall of the human race (and the kosmos - cosmos).

Then, to the bafflement of my mind, I have discovered that there are even Christians who believe in Evolution! Above I mentioned six men; of them one holds to the Gap Theory (Greg Boyd), and one holds to the Day-Age Theory (Hugh Ross), but the other four are evolutionists: William Hasker (Philosopher and author of Triumph of God Over Evil), Francis Collins (world renowned scientist and author of The Language of God), Thomas Cahill (Historian and author of How the Irish Saved Civilization [I love this book]), and Karl Giberson (professor of physics and author of Saving Darwin, who’s book this blog is about).

Where I'm Coming From:

Allow me to state explicitly my position before I get on with my critique of Giberson’s book:

As a Conservative Christian I have always read Genesis as a literal telling of the creation account. But in recent years I have shifted from a Conservative to a Post-Conservative approach to theology (and other areas). What this means is that while Conservatives are often marked by their slow (if ever) moving or accepting of things contrary to what they have always believed (i.e. traditions); a Post-Conservative Christian is one who is open (sincerely so) to accept and embrace other views if those views can be better substantiated.

For example; when I was young I tried hard to "figure out" scientifically how God created the earth in six days - it was a great mystery to me. Today my approach to the first chapter of Genesis is far more fulfilling. Rather then view it as a literal telling of a historical event, I have come to be persuaded by the evidence that Genesis (chapter one) is actually an ancient Jewish poem several layers thick with meaning! For example, in the first three verses the Trinity can be spotted and the motif of the world (good creation, fall, prevenient grace, redemption) can all be seen within those verses. The rest of the chapter unfolds with a description of a God who fills what he separates; you’ll notice that what God separated in the first three days He fills in the latter three respectively. I can read the passage literally in the sense of the Reformers (the sense of reading it literally as it was meant to be read - i.e. Divinely inspired poem several layers thick with meaning), without searching under every rock for a rational (or irrational) explanation on how God separated the light from the darkness without there being yet any sun or moon.

This does not detract from a "young earth" which God created in "six days" climaxing with the creation of man and subsequently a fall. All I’m suggesting is that the writer of Genesis never intended to give details to the "how" of creation, only that God is the creator, that he did it in six days resting on the seventh and that he created anthropos (Adam or Mankind) in His image. The primary purpose for the Genesis account was not to give us a historical or scientific account of creation; the authors concern was to tell us something about GOD! If we lose focus of this fact we can easily become bogged down in the "how" of the Genesis account; and lose sight of the "why" which is a far more pertinent question.

Furthermore, there is something amiss with the chronology given in the book of Genesis and throughout the bible: Several years ago I pulled out a calculator and some blank charts and decided to graph out the chronological record of the bible to determine how old the earth was. After several days work I was excited to be done, it was surprisingly easy and I was shocked that no one had done it before, for I and I alone knew the exact year God created the heavens and the earth - I was fully prepared to receive my Nobel Prize. Then, both to my humility and my joy, I discovered that someone else had in fact calculate the age of the earth using the Biblical time line; a mathematician of the Renaissance Era (Bishop James Ussher, 1581-1656) has calculated the date of creation to be in the year 4004 BC (Sun. Oct. 23 to be exact); I must have done something right because my math came out to be the same year.

Herein lays the problem: according to the timeline, the Great Flood occurs about two thousand years after creation, thus separating Noah from Jesus only by two thousand years. So how could the Flood have occurred in the year 2000 BC (estimated) if the Pyramids in Egypt were built sometime around 2700 BC - seven hundred years earlier. Egyptian civilization flourished unbroken from 3000 BC to the present day, the flood must have occurred prior to 3000 BC if Noah’s descendents are the settlers of the Nile as the Genesis account says.

It is for reasons like these that most "young earther’s", such as I, refer to the age of the earth as being between six to ten thousand years old (probably closer to the latter).

So because I recognize "gaps" within my own system (of the creation account), and because so many well respected and well educated Christians have embraced an "Old Earth" theory of some type, and because many of these Christians are reflective and god-fearing men, I have decided to open my mind up to the possibility that the earth may in fact be much older then I have always believed (that’s the Post-Conservative in me speaking).

Having said that, I will not be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine either, jumping from Gap to Day-Age to Creation to Evolution et cetera. If I am anything of the professions mentioned above, I am a reflective Christian, a lay theologian of sorts. Therefore, theology - not science which is, excuse the pun, forever evolving - is my primary concern. If I am to embrace a creation (or non-creation; i.e. evolution) model other than the one I have, it must be shown to be reasonable of course, but more importantly, it must uphold (or else further and reinforce) the key doctrines of Christianity; namely the doctrines revolving around Redemption.

The Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory have been viable alternative creation models for Christians for over a century now, but for various reasons I have kept myself at arms length from both. There is (for me) way too much speculation involved in both models in an attempt to "make" the bible "fit" science. Perhaps in the future, through greater insight, I may one day embrace one of the two, only time will tell, but at this point I cannot.

Several months ago (when I was on the so called "problem of evil" subjected, reading such books as N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God and Elie Wiesel’s Nobel Prize winner Night) I read William Hasker’s philosophical brain-bender, The Triumph of God Over Evil. In it Hasker makes the forcefully pronounced statement more or less that "evolution is a fact and Christians just have to get over it and move on" (since I don’t have the book on hand I am only paraphrasing and I can’t give a page reference). To say I was shocked at such a statement is to understate my reaction: How does one reconcile Christianity with Evolution?

Awhile later while browsing a Chapters Bookstore I noticed a book fresh off the printing press titled The Language of God by a world renowned scientist named Francis Collins. The book began with a declaration of Collins claim to fame, unlocking the mysteries of the human genome, and secondly (making him almost infamous) declaring his belief in God and in Jesus Christ as his savior. I was proud to see that - finally - a respected and world renowned scientist would defend the cause of Christianity against other scientist. ‘We finally have a heavy weight on our side’ I thought to myself. But it did not take long to discover that I was easily misled (the hopeful are always easily misled) - Collins was an evolutionist and his book was about proving to Christians that evolution is a fact!

But how, I wondered, can someone reconcile the Christian doctrines, the exclusiveness of the human race and the doctrine of the fall of mankind into corruption, and the doctrine of the Creator Covenant Maker God, with Evolution?

It was in this context that I later came across a book by Karl Giberson (an Evolutionist and a Christian), titled Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. You can image my excitement; this is the very question I’ve been asking, How can one be a Christian and believe in Evolution? Finally I’ll get the answers I’ve been waiting for.

And so with an (all too sincerely) open mind, I cracked open the book and began to read Saving Darwin…

... to be continued.

Until then, remain in the faith.
Derek

Friday, August 15, 2008

Saving Sassy

My cat, Sassy is her name, has been alive for fourteen years now. And like my niece (who is also fourteen), I figured she - Sassy - must have passed the 'age of accountably' some time ago, and so it was time to sit her down and explain to her the ways of God so that she might accept Jesus into her heart.

I picked her up and sat her on a spot on the couch next to me and open my bible beginning in Exodus.

I explained to her that in ancient Egypt cats were worshipped by the great Pharoahs of Egypt, and that it was this desire of cats - not being content to have simply been made by God - but this desire to actually be god as they were in Egypt, that led to the "fall" of all cats, just as it had to humans.

Then I took her to Romans where it says that "all" - all cats that is - "have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). But then I explained to her the good news: that God came down to earth in the form of an evolved ape, he clothed himself in the flesh of this evolved tree swinger - to represent all in the animal kingdom, including cats - to defeat sin in his animal skin (Rom. 8:3).

I asked her if she understood what I was telling her, to which I received a blank stare of affirmation. I took that as a yes and asked her if she would like to receive Jesus into her heart - another blank stare of affirmation. I bowed my head and told her to pray this prayer in her heart. When I was done I looked up and saw Sassy starring out the window, obviously touched with a new outlook on life as she sat reflectively watching the birds as they flew by; occasionally licking her chops.

I went to bed peacefully that night knowing that if Sassy died before I wake, that she would be embraced by the evolved ape-ish arms of Jesus, and spend eternity with my neanderthal cousins - and perhaps the fly I squashed yesderday, that is, if the fly had accepted Jesus - in heaven.
(Being facetious of course)

Review of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution to follow.

Derek

Thursday, August 7, 2008

From Dispensational to Covenantal Part V

Ending This Subject

I'm going to end these blogs on why I have gone from Dispensational to becoming Covenantal here with this blog. I could go on and on from so many different angles - I could focus on how I am disillusioned with contemporary eschatology and it's crystal ball approach to scripture or I could focus on the unity and motifs of the Covenants in particular - but the angle I have chosen was to approach the subject from an 'Israel/Church and a single plan of God throughout history' sort of way. Truth be known I have moved on from this subject well over a month ago delighting myself instead with Thomas Cahills series: Hinges of History; having read How the Irish Saved Civilization; Gifts of the Jews; and Desire of the Everlasting Hills. And currently I am reading (God help me) Karl Giberson's Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. When I'm done this one I'll probably give a review on my blog.

Review:

Back to our current subject: So far I have argued for the (I believe) fact that the very word Israel is a spiritual word, one given to those who are Princes with God, or God's answer to the problem of the Fall, (i.e. a recreation, a new Adam). That there was (is) a national Israel that did not live up to their name is beyond a doubt, but the word Israel was to have a larger application then simply a single ethnic group - God's concern is and always has been the entire human race, but the mechanisms he has chosen have varied, and one particular mechanism was to divinely and providentially call apart a people for himself to be a light to the world, to bring the world to rights and to be a testimony to the world of what a people after God would be like. But when the people who carried the title Israel (or Rulers with God) rejected God's rule ("they have not rejected you Samuel, but they have rejected me as their King") then God sought to preserve his plan and promises to Abraham through a remnant within Israel itself (cf. the days of Elijah), a true Israel.

However, whether we are discussion a fleshly Israel who had abandoned God's purpose for their lives, or whether we are talking about the remnant which God himself has preserved, the fact remained that they were all still sons of Adam and consequentially a product of the Fall (i.e. all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God). But so that God's promises to Abraham and to the Covenants might be fulfilled, God sent forth his Son in the likeness of an Adam, yet without sin, to condemn sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3), he succeeded at every point where corporate Israel had failed; and what I argued in my previous blog is that Christ was true Israel, the embodiment of One who Rules with God, and subsequently through his resurrection he became the fulfillment and first fruits of a New Creation or a Second Adam, as Paul put it.

So now where does this leave the Church? Are there two distinct peoples of God or one? How are we to understand the Church and her relation to the term "Israel" in light of Jewish Messiah who is, of course, our Messiah?

The Church: Rulers with God

The biblical evidence to support what I am about to conclude from everything already said is (in my opinion) insurmountable! But in the spirit of wanting to move on let me simply outline it for you.

Israel, those in Christ!

  • Israel was one man only; but in Exodus 4:22 the descendants of Jacob are called Israel. The term goes from first applying to one man, then to all those who are "in" that one man.
  • We find this again in the New Testament; that Christ, as I have shown is the Second Adam, the first fruits of a New Creation and (in keeping with this discussion) Israel in the truest sense of the term. Thus those who are "in" Christ are now also a New Creation, and the true Israel of God (Gal 6:16; Gal 3:6-26 ff, Ephesians 1). I'm not simply drawing random apparent parallels between Israel and the Church anymore then Matthew "randomly" or accidentally fell upon certain parallels between the history of Israel and Jesus himself.

Consider the following:

What I hinted at in a previous blog is that there are two lineages of Abraham; a lineage of the flesh and a lineage of the Faith. The lineage of faith is what we are most interested in because it will prove that there are not "two people and plans and purposes of God" but only one - by faith. Abraham's true children are those who are of faith, not those of the flesh! This means both Jews and Gentiles of faith make up spiritual (or true) Israel; while on the flip side of the coin, those who are both Jews and Gentiles of the flesh are not spiritual (or true) Israel! True children of Abraham, (i.e. true Israelites) are not those of an ethnic heritage, but those of a spiritual one, by faith! Consider these point forms:
  • Gal. 3:6-7: lineage of faith
  • Matt 3:9-10: lineage of faith
  • John 8:39: lineage of faith
  • John 8:41-44: lineage of the flesh
  • John 1:47: lineage of faith
  • Romans 2:28-29: lineage of faith/flesh
  • Gal. 4:22-31: lineage of faith verse a lineage of the flesh

I also want to point out here that Israel was to be a Royal Priesthood and a holy nation (Romans 2), (those familiar with their bible probably already know where I am going with this), Peter says that we the Church are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation" - we the Church are God's holy nation! - 1 Peter 2:9! Not ethnic Israel, but spiritual (or true) Israel are the holy nation, made up of both Jews and Gentiles!

Turing this whole subject on it's head there is a fearful lesson to be learned by those who call themselves part of the "Christian Church". Just as in the case with Israel, one is not an Israelite by ethnicity only, so also in the Christian Church one is not a part of God's ekklesia, God's Church, (God's Israel as Paul says in Galatians) simply by claiming membership or attending services. The Church of God is a living organism, a spiritual body made up of many parts but with Christ (not your bishop) as head. You must not claim membership in an organization and assume you are a part of the Body of Christ. For that to be the case you must be a member by faith in which denominational barriers do not exist - please be that member.

More could be said on the subject: The 144,000 from every tribe in Revelation: 12 tribes / 12 apostles - the foundation of Israel both visible and spiritual, multiplied by one thousand (the number of completion) equals the complete people of God. It's as Paul said, when the time of the Gentiles is complete, then all Israel (the Israel of God breaking ethnic barriers) will be saved! I could speak of how Israel is God's bride in the Old Testament and how the ekklesia is God's bride in the New Testament - God is not a polygamist, neither has He abandoned (divorced) his promise to Abraham and his heirs, rather the bride in the "Old" and the bride in the "New" together make up one people (Romans 9-11, cf. Hosea; Ephesians etc). Or else we could consider the New Jerusalem in Revelation a structure too enormous to be taken "literally", the context itself demands we not do so. Rather the New Jerusalem is (don't miss the allusions) a pure bride coming down from heaven, then an angle says to John, "let me show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb" and what does he see, none other then the "Holy City, Jerusalem" with twelve gates each with the name of the twelve tribes of Israel, and twelve foundation stones each with the names of the twelve apostles on it. How anyone could miss the significance is beyond me! What we have here is a picture of the complete Church or Israel (interchangeably), the pure bride of Christ - no temple, God is the Temple, no sun - the glory is God gives it's light.

And in all of this I have not even begun to expound on all the passages above, and many more not even hinted at here. This is a blog not a book; the bottom line is that I do not see how Ryrie or anyone else could hold such a position, as he does, in the face of such an explicit biblical motif!

This must be why others (cf. Darrell Brock) have moved on from tradition Dispensationalism to a so-called Progessive Dispensationalism, in an attempt to align or amalgamate a dispensational world-view with a strongly Covenantal motif in scripture.

Conclusion:

Have I effectively met my goal and expressed why I have travelled from Dispensationalism to Covenantalism? Maybe; or maybe I simply went off on a tangent in one area, not doing justice to the complete subject and reasoning behind (or driving) my journey. Certainly a large part of my persuasion has been a great disillusionment with the crystal ball approach to current events by modern "prophets" (I mean that in the most cynical sense possible) such as current Nostradamus' like Grant Jeffrey and Jack van Impe who seem to know more about the future then God (being the Open Theist that I am).

I hope I have made some positive and coherent arguments among all this jargon and rambling of mine. My goal was not (as it never is) to force anyone to accept a position I've taken (naturally since my own positions are forever in flux), but to encourage further thoughts (pensées) on any given subject. I hope I have done this here.

Until Next Time: Remain stable with the God who was, is and always will be; the One who forever has been the same.

Blessings.
Derek

Followers