Nonconformist Chronicles

Pluralistic Christians?

How far outside the box can we go and still be considered Christian? I'm revisiting this question after hearing a pastor and professor who also happens to be a pluralist, syncretist, universalist, and evolutionist,who is also affirming of homosexual practice. The lectures I heard were delivered by Bruce Epperly at the Oreon Scott Lectures on the campus of Bethany University. This was my second year in attendance at this institution of the Disciples of Christ denomination.

Epperly had some very good insights which I found to be profound and I enjoyed visiting with him at a reception. My faith was strengthened in a Jesus who is very much alive and in a God who is responsive to our prayers. I also agreed, to an extent, with Epperly's views regarding theological openness. Not being a fan of Reformed theology, I don't think God micromanages all the details. I think he is as greived by tragic loss as we are and that he may have a limited omniscience, albeit self-imposed, IMO.

But I am not a pluralist, syncretist, evolutionist, or "affirming" individual because I feel that most of these stances are incompatible with a Christ who claimed to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). Then there are the clear Old Testament statements, and additional statements by Paul, that are in opposition to homosexual practice. While not a total biblical literalist, I reject evolution as unscientific.

The Disciples of Christ denomination (but not every individual in it) seems to have accepted evolution as how the universe works and this has extended to a view of God who likewise evolves as a shape-shifting Being. The evolution of theology is likewise detected in Scripture and the evolution has continued up until now.

The Disciples, like other groups, are lamenting their shrinking numbers. Epperly sees the promise of postmodernism as a potential key to mainline Protestantism's success in "evangelism." Unlike evangelicalism, it's suggested that perhaps the world will find more affinity with a "progressive" version of Christianity. Why not incorporate Yoga classes or Buddhist meditation into our church life? Why not draw from all the major world religions? Why not embrace practicing homosexuals into our ranks? This seems to be the course that "Disciples" are charting, although not all of them.

The lectures helped me to understand why so many conservatives are circling the wagons, fearful of where any slight innovation might lead. The Disciples have truly come a long way since Campbell's Bible-only plea. I am not empathetic with the conservatives, but I understand them better.  

We in more conservative circles might argue that the real key to progress is to reject "progressivism" in favor of a more fundamental approach. We might argue that a church that looks identitical to the world is no real alternative and not real attractive to someone seeking a different way. The church has historically been counter-cultural. Is it possible to be progressive in the sense that we are culturally sensitive and culturally savvy without being cultural chameleons?                

Genesis and Evolution (2)

If it were proved beyond that shadow of any doubt that evolution is true, would that destroy your faith? Some believe that if evolution is true then the Bible cannot be true. So we might as well throw the Bible away if Darwin turns out to be right. This assumes that the creation narrative in Genesis must be understood as a literal account of origins. So faith would stand or fall with the historicity and scientific accuracy of Genesis 1. If the earth wasn't created in seven literal days then how can we trust anything in our Bibles? So the argument goes. 

But what if the point of Genesis is not to teach history or science? What if the point is theological? (imagine that). What if the author's intent was a refutation of mythological views that threaten the dignity of both deity and humanity?

It would not destroy my faith if evolution turned out to be true. I would simply conclude that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, but metaphorically. What it communicates regarding the divine and human natures is the real point.

Now, in case you're wondering, I'm not sold on evolution so I don't think it will be proved. In fact, it has not been proved to a good number of scientists who just don't get the press or opportunities that the evolutionists receive. It's a myth that all scientists are on the same page with this. My personal reluctance to accept evolution has less to do with the Bible than it does with the science of systems. As Patrick Mead stated in a recent blog post, systems must be complete in order to function. If I follow his meaning, we could point to complex systems such as beehives, the human eye, or complex eco-systems as examples of systems in which everything must work right from the get-go. To imagine these systems as evolving and adapting with all the mechanisms perfectly falling into place is a bit too much for me to swallow. I also have a problem with four-legged creatures becoming aquatic and the other way around. 

My problems with evolution do not mean that I have a problem with believers who accept it. I don't think a person's view on the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2 is essential to being a Christian. Some believers are persuaded that a rejection of evolution, based on evidence for an old earth, means being intellectually dishonest. While I may disagree, I do not discount these folks as my brothers and sisters. We have made far too many issues a test of fellowship and we've been far too dogmatic about issues the Bible wasn't written to address.

The problem is not evolution per se, but the problem is naturalism. It's the philosophy that everything came into being by chance without any intelligent design behind it. Scientist Jonathan Wells, when interviewed for Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator, said that evolution is simply "materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science" (p.41). Many evolutionists are indeed naturalists in the philosophical sense of the term. They only believe what they think can be empirically verified. They begin by presupposing that everything must have a natural explanation since the supernatural obviously doesn't exist. Many of them do employ evolutionary theory as an argument against the existence of God. 

While some Christian apologists have really reached in their attempts to fit the Bible into a scientific mold, the naturalists have also reached when trying to make everything harmonize with Darwin's theories. Neither attempt at explaining origins is free from contradictions or holes.  

So can Genesis be employed to refute world-views of which the author was not aware? I think so, if the world-view in question either leaves God out of the equation, views him as synonymous with creation, or associates creation too closely with God. So pantheism, deism, and even naturalism would all contradict what is taught in Genesis concerning God's immanence and transcendence. But it's unnecessary to insist that being "sound" means understanding Genesis as literal history and science.

Genesis and Evolution

The author of Genesis 1 never heard of evolution. It wasn't on his radar screen. The issue would never have crossed his mind. So his creation account was obviously not written as a polemic to refute scientific theory. Yet some apply the text exclusively to that issue as if that were its purpose for being written. We can miss the author's intent by too quickly associating the ancient text with current debates.

Genesis 1 is polemical, but the author is not combating evolutionary theory. He is combating pagan idolatry. Contrasted with the pagan mythology of "the gods," Genesis testifies to a single God who is both above creation, yet intimately involved with it. The powers of chaos pose no threat to him. So he doesn't have to fight sea monsters or confer with a divine committee to get things done. The celestial bodies do not control human destiny, but God controls the celestial bodies for the benefit of humans.

Genesis argues against pagan worldviews that compete with Judaic monotheism. So is it fair to evoke Genesis 1 against other worldviews which undermine the biblical concept of prime reality? Can Genesis be employed against pantheism by which everything is viewed as divine or against deism in which God is viewed as the watchmaker who sets the universe in motion but then leaves it to run on its own?

Once we have a clue about the authorial intent of Genesis 1, can we responsibly bring it to bear on the discussion regarding evolutionary theory? Is Genesis 1 relevant to the discussion at all?