How God Created by Evolution: A Proposed Theory of Man's Evolutionary Development

The Bible reflects the ancient cultures in which it was written,
and this very fact proclaims the glory of God.

January 6, 2012, Update

After re-reading the NPR story, "Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam and Eve" (found further below) submitted on August 16, 2011 (along with my initial opening comments, "Introductory Comments to NPR's Review")  I thought I might provide a simplified formula that might blend the traditional understanding of the Genesis Account to the evolutionary account confronting it. In this way both accounts stand true within their own systems and yet can find working agreement between each other. I had thought of this emendation when considering the impasse between classical physics of yesteryear and its more contemporary twin of quantum mechanics seeking to explain the "large" through terms of the "very small." Left unexplained, we have two separate scientific systems at loggerheads with one another separated by an unexplained paradox lying between them. Similarly with traditional Christianity's impasse of theology with today's evolutionary/scientific discoveries.

Consequently, the impasse that exists between the traditional and contemporary understandings of the Genesis Story could be more simply resolved by offering a small explanation that might recover God's creative acts to the theological satisfaction of both sides. Technically, this commentary should actually fall after the NPR report and not before it, as I am only now updating my thoughts several months afterwards. However, I am making it foremost before all else as a completely separate topic. And when given the time and opportunity I may later try to rewrite this entire section again from a more extenisve biblical, hermeneutical, theological standpoint. My proposal now follows...

R.E. Slater

January 6, 2011

HOW GOD CREATED BY EVOLUTION

------------

A Proposed Theory of Man's Evolutionary Development

from a

Contemporary Christian Theological Perspective

A Suggested Plausible Theory Inter-relating Biblical Theology

with Evolutionary/Scientific Discoveries

by R.E. Slater

January 6, 2011

[This commentary continues from my earlier critique of a National Public Radio commentary submitted on August 16, 2011, listed further below and is titled "Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam and Eve." Because it created an unnecessary impasse to Christian theology I have consequently written a secondary response to it contained here in this present commentary.... - R.E. Slater]

Introductory Comments

"...In this writer's opinion, I consider Al Mohler's traditional sentiments (as quoted in an earlier NPR review) to be a "false positive assertion" spoken by a church traditionalist unwilling to integrate orthodox theology with present-day academic findings. And yet, by turning that very same traditional Christian sentiment around, I would further submit that we may be able to find theological agreement between (Mediated/Progressive) Evolutionary Creationism to that of the (Immediate/Spontaneous) Traditional Creationism position of late-20th century Evangelicalism. The former relies on present day sciences whereas the later relies on present day interpretive ideologies in order to retain orthodox teachings.

But in order to proceed with finding a corollation between both Christian positions it must be immediately understood that Evolutionary Creationism does not refer to Darwinian Evolution (or, Scientific Naturalism). This distinction has been addressed in another article which drew the conclusion that the former proceeds from a theistic foundation whereas the latter proceeds from an atheistic or agnostic foundation. Though each position uses the sciences, they too differ by ideological interpretation (sic, Differences between Evolutionary Creationism and Darwinian Scientific Naturalism).

To begin then, in this writer's opinion, traditional Christianity has a valid argument for their pointed misgivings regarding the following Christian doctrines as listed below:

1 - original sin and human depravity, known as the Fall, seems to have no initiating point;

2 - the uniqueness of humanity seems inspecific from the animal kingdom in regards to man's creation in the image of God when descending "as a population" from the lower primates;

3 - the origin of sin into the world is also inspecific when regarding Eve and her disobedience (including Adam's); their mutual eating of the fruit of the tree of life; and the involvement of the serpent's deception using human speech and logic. Consequently there is no specific point of disobedience when using the evolutionary model nor a similarly corresponding language of evil;

4 - the typologies of Adam and Christ references of the OT and NT no longer seem pertinent as viewed from within the evolutionary model of creationism.

To this list might be added other traditional theological doctrines of disagreement, however, the point is made here that contemporary theology's model of Evolutionary Creation must re-integrate these most basic of Christian doctrines back into the Christian faith if it were to be considered as a valid counter-proposal of God's creative activity. And so, how can we proceed beyond this impasse if we should attempt a reconciliation beyond the doctrinal watershed of orthodox Christianity's foundational theologies? I submit that it can, and must, be done using evolutionary discoveries couple with contemporary biblical research.


A Proposal

Importantly, let us first begin by saying that the Genesis story is an ancient Hebrew creation story used both for theologic and national purposes by Israel. That it was understood as part of Israel's historical legacy as witness to its oral traditions passed along from generation to generation. That it uses poetic and mythological elements to convey a literary construction. And that the lessons it teaches have importance to understanding Israel's monotheistic religion of God whom they knew by the name Yahweh (YHWH); and who declared Himself to be the "I AM whom I AM." From this interaction we understand then that God is the Creator of the world who judges sin. Who is declared to be "The Lord of all" and the "Almighty God" as witnessed by His actions. And whom the Hebrew's Creation Story declares to be their Savior when observing God's promises made to the man and the woman in the Garden of Eden whose offspring will wound the head of the deceptive serpent.

From these observations we may also say that the Genesis story in its early narrative passages (chp 1, chps 2-3, chps 4-11) is not allegorical (that is, symbolic language left to imagined retelling). But that it has a literal-historical content that relates a meta-narrative of the nation Israel's nationalized history as it bisects with God's own meta-narrative of bringing salvation to both themselves, as a nation, and to each man personally in the history of the earth. Nor is it mythological in the Greek sense of a polytheistic religion. It is, however, a monotheistic religion that can be said to be mythological both in the literary sense of historical genre as well as to the disbelieving non-Christian who considers the Christian God but mere myth. But to those who follow Jesus it is anything but that, as the Jewish faith (or,  Jewish religion) provided a spiritual depth and reality not usually found in any of the other world's ancient religions. But this is a discussion for another time and place....

So far we have declared the biblical creation story of Genesis to be factually true as an ancient comprehension of cosmogeny taught and passed along by the Hebrews to the next successive generations (much like the Church has done through the centuries of its teachings on Jesus). Thus, we are giving our support for a biblical hermeneutic that is historical, grammatical, and contextual. but not allegorical. Nor mythological (in the strict, polytheistic sense as used in the ancient Near-Eastern religions of that time). And not without support by Israel and its religious traditions. For Israel believed their creation account to be true and had drawn from it certain theological conclusions about God, man, sin and salvation as described in Genesis.

Consequently, here is my first proposal of theological/linguistic solidification - That "original sin" and "human depravity," typically used in describing "the Fall" by the Church in Christian literature, could possibly be described in present day scientific terms as the early formation and development of "human consciousness." Especially as it developed within the Homo Sapien branch of the hominid population evolving distant eons later into today's human populations. Whether human consciousness was learned, or innate (probably both), will be left to the anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and learning theorists to debate. But since Evolutionary Creation theory proposes God's purposeful and intricate relationship to the continuing formation of creation that we call evolution (even unto this present day!) than we can assume that God somehow (1) "sparked" that innate sense of consciousness, as well as (2) directed the earliest Homo Sapiens towards its learned acquisition and development. (I'm assuming earlier hominid forms may not have had this quality but there is no reason not to assume this either. Why? Because ape and chimpanzee studies seem to indicate a self-conscious awareness as well; as perhaps did other hominid groupings. Though not found to be as refined as it may have been within the succeeding Homo Sapien populations that were beginning to evolve 800,000 years ago. Especially in connection with the correspondent (and similarly evolving) concepts of "sin" and "guilt" that we as mankind bear today).*

*Most recently the concept of eusociality has come to light pertaining to the development of human consciousness and I would refer the reader to this more recent article entitled, Eusociality and the Bible, for a fuller explanation by Edward O. Wilson after completing your present study here - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/eusociality-and-bible-part-2-of-2.html].

Now some reports that I have read have put the branch of Homo Sapien closer to 160,000 years ago... but I suspect that this "inception" date to perhaps signify the "maturity" of that species away from Neanderthal man into its own more separate lineage (cf. sidebar articles under this topic). That said, I have toyed with the idea that sometime then - or later - God could have "breathed" His divine image in a specialised moment of interrupted creation which would appeal to Immediate Day Creationists who may be more open to the evolutionary development of man but are caught between the Genesis account and its theology of sin, death, disobedience, etc. Consequently, this idea could be allowed for we have no factual evidence that it couldn't have occurred. How could we? It is too far back to be proved. Nor could it be proved except on the oral tradition of Israel's processions.  However, in the view of Evolutionary Creationism, it seems an unnecessary interuptive act of God in the stream of human development's natural course. And as a point of rigorous scientific discipline it would be more credible to maintain an evolutionary perspective throughout the development of mankind and cede to the understanding that God subtended throughout the creation and development of man through a continual act of special creation. This avoids the instantaneously miraculous, per se, but extends the concept of the miraculous continually throughout the creative development of man, beginning all the way back to the creative spark of the universe itself. Why? Because if this is God's universe, and if God created it to share with free willed beings, then this is not incredible at all to believe despite sin, death, disobedience and the indetrminacy found within the heart of the cosmos (or in nature) - that God sovereignly rules through allowance and subtendance - as we've discussed in a variety of articles from process thought and open theism to evolutionary theory and indeterminacy.

So then, this is my first scientific + theological proposal in attempt to wed a human trait - consciousness - with the theological concept of - sin or guilt - and merge the two into one, thus bridging the gap between science and biblical doctrine. I also find Edward Wilson's concept of eusociality to be immensely helpful in regard to the development of man's social consciousness through primitive tribal groupings, posturings, and protection that were occurring in the Stone Age. And from this evolutionary concept I now intend to proceed to wed other theological concepts to it as a way to bridge the incendiary gap between Evolutionary Creationism and Traditional Creationism.

With consciousness comes humanity's uniqueness

One that God provided again by "tweaking" the mutation stream of the Homo Sapien gene pool to cause a more refined development within this more evolving hominid branch. Perhaps this quality began further back in earlier hominid lines (as I think it must) as hominid populations mutated further and further away from their common ancestral evolutionary line of apes. But eventually, after millions of years of evolvement - at the directing hand of God, or by God's most intricate involvement (cf. Evolution: Is God Playing Dice?) - a more refined sense of "self-understanding" grew through "societal interaction" between Homo Sapiens and the world around. All brought about by the scientific concept of "consciousness" that can now be used to not only describe sin and guilt, but the uniqueness of mankind from the animal kingdom. A uniqueness we may describe as the "image of God" found within man.

Thus far I am appealing to God's active presence and involvement  within the "process" and "mediation" of creation itself using the propositions of Relational Theology (see sidebars) coupled with Evolutionary Creationism's theoretical propositions. Simply, God is relational and thus we should find that same relational aspect within man which we call in theological terms as "the image of God." Moreover, God is independent of, but intricately involved with, His creation. That is, God is immediately and always involved with evolving not only mankind, but the earth, and the universe beyond. This continues even now to this day of modernised, industrialised mankind. God is here and present within the societies of men. We should not expect otherwise. Though this holds no meaning whatsoever for those who see the world as a cold, mechanistic place lurching haphazardly from one societal era to the next, devoid of the simple elements of love, peace and forgiveness. These are but adjectives for how we get along in life until we die and become nothing again held within that sterile space of void and darkness. But to those of us who vibrate with God's Spirit, who feel the flow and energy of God's love, peace and forgiveness, the world is a beauty place filled with the incense of heaven overflowing with God's presence, personage, perspective, and propitiation.

However, I am not proposing a panentheistic relation as process theologians think of God's relationship with this world. But am attempting to elevate a classic theistic position using appropriate parts of process thinking and describing it in terms of relational theology. Why? Because somewhere in the mix comes the vital aspect of "free will" as it relates to (1) God's self-image; to (2) creation in general - which seems to have its own kind of "free will" not normally acknowledged by latter day Evangelical theologians; and (3) to ourselves in the composition of our being. For now, I'm simply stating that free will is part-and-parcel of man's make-up of "consciousness." That free will is actually the true meaning of consciousness in that to be conscious of one's self is to be aware of one's determinative choices. If we could not choose, could we be self-conscious of ourselves and of the world about us? We see this similar trait of will and choice within the ape and monkey population. But again, not to as great a degree of enhancement as it lays within the Homo Sapien line of hominids. Further, we'll again leave it to the  anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and learning theorists to debate how will and consciousness are related to one another; or distinguished from one another; or are compounded definitions of the one to the other; or even which one gave birth to the other,... or to neither. I am simply saying that if man bears the scientific qualification of a conscience, than with it has come man's willfulness.

Thus science is married again to theology's terms of free will and the image of God in man. Evolutionary Creation describes these concepts in terms of process or development which are mediated by God into evolving traits and characteristics. Whereas Traditional Creationism declares man immediately formed with these traits and characteristics and without the necessity of a mediated process. That these were spontaneous qualities of man sprung from the heart and hand of God's own Image as mythologically described in Israels national account of its history written sometime between 500 and 1500 BC (should we wish to include both the first AND the second temple periods). Logically, evolution was occurring many millions of years earlier and would be impossible to be witnessed by the more developed species of ancient mankind in man's earliest hunter-gather phase. Nor certainly could it be witnessed from the much later bronze ages of the Israel's very recent temple periods 3000-3500 years ago. Why? Because that event is much to recent to such an old, old process occurring eons earlier. But traditional Creationism assumes this and so, these time differences must be noted. However, a Christian evolutionist would say that the Genesis Account simply was God's way of telling Israel about basic theological concepts that would distinguish God as God, and man as man, and give purpose to Israel's monotheistic religion as versus the polytheistic (and pagan) religions surrounding them. That the Genesis Account was not a scientific account of Creation but an consolidated theological account of Creation using poetry, mythology, and narrative. The Bible is still a real and true account. But it has a different interpretive value when faced with the prospects of scientific discoveries made in anthropology, biology, geology and cosmology.... Scientific discoveries which were not conceived of by ancient civilizations at the time of writing the book of Genesis.

Evil results as a by-product of human consciousness

That is, if ancient man was developing the sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and even that of choice, than it was all birthed because he had a conscience. Or a graduated conscience in the sense that it was becoming more pronounced through nearer and nearer mutations, innate development, and learned behaviors. The further we get away from primitive man and the closer we get to early/ancient man the more pronounced evil and sin has become to us as a species. As a simple illustration, the idea of slavery and exploitation is less desirable socially today than it was 2000 years ago. The same can be said concerning the contemporary concepts of social inequality between men and women, various types of race and cultures, of child or gender exploitation, and so on. Meaning that the longer we cohabitate together with one another in our evolving civilizations the more pronounced have become our concepts of right and wrong sociologically. And thus, we as a hominid branch, we are exhibiting graduated levels of a more pronounced social consciousness (which also reveals the truth of the continuing occurrence of evolution within mankind - and the world in general - today! Hence, we are generally less brutish with each other as versus more ancient Assyrian/Babylonian/Roman invasions; even though Spanish Inquisitions, Nazi genocide, and human slavery still occur in pockets of time and civilizations; yet social injustices and regional respect of cultural identity seem to be more of an overriding concern in today's technologically-evolving world). Consequently, we are witnessing evolution occurring, if not physically because of the long periods of time required, then socially amongst human populations, at the hand of God who chooses to evolve - or assimilate - our world into His own ethics of Kingdom and Kingdom living.

Similar argumentation may also be used of "God as light" in considering "sin" or "evil" as a by-product of consciousness: If God is light all else is darkness. God is not the opposite of darkness, but contains the absence of darkness. Or, said another way, sin is that which is not God. Or even, sin is that which is unGod-like. Or, God is without sin. As a result, the conscious level of awareness in primitive man is becoming more pronounced as his faculty develops in connection with his self-understanding, his connection to his environment, and with the other Homo Sapien evolving with him. This is not to say that other hominid populations were not similarly endowed with a self-understanding beyond that of a brute beast. But that God's image of light (and not darkness) had conveyed itself into the evolving stages of mankind's earliest development (and the Relational Theist in me says that God has been intricately involved with man's development throughout every level, every breath, and each-and-every stage of his mutational progress, right down to the personal level of mankind's individuality).


Consequently, Adam/Eve may be retained as Typologies

between the Christian Faith and Christ

The terms of "First Man" and the "Last Man" can be another way of describing some men who have died to sin and others who have lived in Christ. These are concepts of life, death, even sin. But better understood in relational contexts of man to himself, to his environment, and to others within his own species of hominids. As example, Caan's murder of his brother Abel was a reprehensible act to ancient primitive man. He was banished and isolated from the mutual help and support found in primitive communities. Ideas like murder were linked to concepts we call "sin." But in man's development of consciousness came the continuing pronunciation of this quality, or characteristic, through long millenias of hominid development, cycles of life and death, and the general evolution of the species. We see this with Neanderthal man being murdered by the Homo Sapien population as a competing threat to their limited environment due to glaciation and so forth. And perhaps because of bigotry or feelings of superiority by Homo Sapiens to the Neanderthals. Each lived in family and tribal collectives. But the Homo Sapien line was more adaptable to the changing environment. In other instances, both species intermingled and may have collaborated together. Still, the Neanderthal line died out due to environmental changes that the Homo Sapien line could better withstand and adapt to against these same factors. Whether due to biological superiority, mental or social acuity, etc, can only be theorized. But in terms of Pauline origin, this cannot be known. Only that the apostle Paul used the concept of Adam from Israel's creation narratives to describe Israel's Messiah.

Now admittedly my inference and reliance upon the argument of consciousness is simplistic and given as a quick illustration as to how to bring about a type of resolution between traditional arguments for Genesis as factually true against accusations of Genesis as simply allegory and myth. But it does draw upon modern scientific discoveries while arguing for a literal-historic Hebraic account of creation within an ancient mythological context that has elements both of good story-telling and universal truths within it. Moreover, it further accounts for God's story through the apprehension of ancient man (early civilizations) not endowed with scientific reasoning and resources. All the factual elements are there... from creation's order (given as days 1 through 7 now supported by cosmological and early earth studies) to its theologic imports of Creator, creation, man, sin, evil, etc....

In fact, I could argue that modern man in all of his "evolved" subtleties would be hard-pressed to come up with a better explanation of the Genesis account (first written in Moses' day... c.1626 BC?) than what the ancient Hebrew account has done. How could would we explain Homo Sapien history as it was occurring  between 1.2 million or 800,000 years ago (or even earlier branches of hominid development occurring many millions of years earlier than that!!) when even our own oral traditions have had a hard enough time simply retaining what it meant to be "a people of God" conceptually. Consider all the many nuances of that term and phrase as it morphed and changed within the Exodus and Wilderness eras; Israel's early tribal and first monarchy periods; Israel's divided kingdoms and exiles; the Second Temple rebuilding period; the inter-testamental times; then the era of Jesus and the early church; then the early church fathers era, to the middle ages, to the Renaissance, to the modern and postmodern eras. When taken as a whole, to be called "the people of God" had different meanings to each person living within each of those sublime eras. And this would account for roughly only 4000 years of human history (what we call man's "civilization period")! So how could we simply assume that a more detailed account of God's creative activity could be better preserved than it has been at present with a more elaborate story. No, God gave Israel a creational narrative that would be easier to pass down through the years than a more explicit one with more mitigating factualities. A narrative that could be ably preserved in simple literary terms. Not in exquisite scientific explanations and innuendo.

Conclusion

Thus, for ancient man in his early civilizations to account for his anthropological development at least a hundred thousand years earlier or more, through using oral traditions of earlier historical occurrences and theological teaching, would be rather exceptional even by our own standards of literacy today when we cannot even garner agreement from one year to the next between our own contemporary interpretations of society, industry, finance, and historical movement! The fact still remains that we work with what we have as theologians while studying ancient biblical literature and cultures and trying to integrate those understandings within present day science. And that we must be willing to adapt our more traditionally orthodox church-based theologies to present day findings into updated theo-sophical/scientific declarations that might be as valid as their counterpart scientific formulae and evolutionary assertions of human development. Of course this is assuming today's Big Bang theory and man's anthropological evolutionary in the fossil records still are valid a thousand years from now (I suspect that the Big Bang will be greatly modified! But I'm not so sure how to argue against earth's fossil records and geologic/biologic processes as interpretive source).

So here is my proposition for synthesizing the traditionally orthodox understanding of the Genesis record with today's more modern, contemporary Evolutionary Creation theories and concepts within a biblical/theological paradigm. By interposing the inspecific term of "consciousness" as the spiritual/behavioral modifier as the leap (or missing link, pun intended!) between an ancient Hebrew Creation Story to today's more radical understanding of man's ancient development we find a somewhat credible gap of continuity between the old and new. I would suspect better, more sophisticated, theories to  replace this simplistic idea, but for now it's one we can understand, accept and work off from. It supports the biblical revelation of the creation story. And it correlates early civilization views with today's scientific findings. And consequently we have an adequate marriage of Evolutionary Creation with that of Traditional Immediate Creation Theory. Thank you for your consideration.

R.E. Slater

originally posted January 6, 2012

later revised April 2, 2012

 

Related follow Up Article -

Eusociality and the Bible

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/eusociality-and-bible-part-2-of-2.html

 

 

 

 

Index to past discussions -

 

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

 

 

 

 

 

Review: Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

A companion peice to this article may found here -

Resolving the Genesis Story between Traditional and Contemporary Theologies

In it I propose a solution to the impasse found in the article below showing how

to connect traditional theologies with contemporary research and discoveries.

RE Slater

January 6, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This past fall we had conducted a thorough review of C. John Collins book found in the sidebar section: Science - The Search for Adam by Collins. From that study many conclusions were reached in which Peter Enns only mentions a few in the article below. Though I like reading Peter Enns, I found this current review only generally helpful, but limited, whereas our more formal study had included separate chapter discussions of the same book over a period of nine different articles by a Christian scientist who favors Evolutionary Creationism as the preferred model of explaining human origins.

As such, Peter's present digest requires uninitiated traditional Creationists better insider knowledge of the arguments that he is making here for the rejection of the traditional view. So that when reading through the article one is left lost and confused and not sure what to believe. To help alleviate confusion on this topic I have listed several articles below that could better pose the problems that Evolutionary Creation seems to resolve when faced with the scientific evidences of cosmology, geology, biology, and anthropology. And importantly, how Evolutionary Creationism is theistically different from the agnostic/atheistic views of (Darwinian) Naturalism which are commonly lumped together by undiscerning Christians to the former even though both systems apply themselves towards the same scientific researches.

That said, I have been following Peter Enns because he has shown a simple clarity to the evolutionary understanding of the Genesis record which we have been investigating this past year along with the additional help of biblical theologians and scientific review journals and abstracts. Here, Enn's review of Collins books typifies the difficulties traditional Creationists have when trying to reconcile the creation story within traditional (evangelic or orthodox Christian) parameters. As has been said, all of these difficulties have been written about before: For new readers please refer to the appropriate sidebars for further discussions (sic, the Bible, or Hermeneutics, or Science sidebars on the right side of the blog).

Peter then goes on to describe two groups of people - those traditionalists trying to come to terms with evolution; and those Evolutionary Creationists who understand that Collin's presentation doesn't go far enough and simply is recreating the bible into his own Creationistic preferences and assumed paradigms. And as we have said earlier this year, it's either one or the other as we now understand it. To be halfway just confuses the picture. One either has to deny all contemporary findings across all fields - both biblical and scientific; or begin accepting contemporary findings and re-integrating what all these new discoveries mean for today's Christian faith.

More importantly, C. John Collin's solutions confuse the authority and authenticity of Scripture by using naive and out-of-date arguments. And more to the point it creates an inauthentic and non-authoritative bible when using such arguments. And because this blog journal chooses to give priority to Scripture first, we have been investigating how to reconcile Evolutionary Creationism to the biblical records. Thus, we have been reworking our traditional understanding of Scripture into a more profound and authentic voice found within the biblical record itself. One that better accounts for cosmic process and theistic mediation.

And if all of this sounds oblique please refer to the sample articles below in addition to the sidebar listings mentioned above. There has been quite a lot of work put into this subject area by myself in this blog journal here, and many thousands of hours of research performed by scientists, theologs and critics as well. But do not despair in your research. There is enough here in this web blog to give you direction to discovering a very credible faith and authenticate Bible. But it requires movement in both directions - by science towards God and by the Bible towards science (actually, our understanding of the Bible is what is the problem within Christian circles). This type of study will take time to digest because it involves so many different areas of research (especially the Hermeneutics and Bible sections for one). It also will require a new line of contemporary critical thinking quite different from the non-postmodern mindset typically found within present-day Evangelic Christianity relying on extra-biblical dogmas and Enlightenment polemics.

Overall my arguments will be for Evolutionary Creation but within those arguments I will show the validity of the Christian faith and the authority/authenticity of the Scriptures we hold near-and-dear to our hearts without having to do sleight-of-hand tricks. From those presentations you will be better able to judge important and critical directions to both the traditional, and evolutionary, understandings of Theistic Creation, as they occur in colleges and universities around the world.

Thank you.

R. E. Slater

January 5, 2011

Sample Articles

Science - Human Origins

The God of Creation - Why Would God Use 4.6 to 6.2 Billion Years to Create the Earth? Subtitle: The God of Creation: Narrative, Hermeneutics, Theology and Creative Evolution

Academic Integrity in the face of Evolutionary Eviction by Evangelicals

Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve

Pete Enns - The Evolution of Adam, Parts 1, 2, 3

 Common Christian Mistakes Made about Adam and Evolution

Science - The Search for Adam by Collins

 * * * * * * * * * * * *

Did Adam & Eve Really Exist?

Stilhttp://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=7796l in the Weeds on Human Origins

by Peter Enns

December 2011: Review

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

Who They Were and Why You Should Care by C. John Collins, Crossway Books, 2011
$15.99. 192 pages.

C. John Collins has taken on the important task of explaining who Adam and Eve were in view of evolutionary theory—which he accepts, at least in its broad outlines. More importantly, Collins wishes to instill in his readers a firm confidence in Adam and Eve as the historical "headwaters" of the human race, and so retains the biblical metanarrative of creation, fall, and redemption. In other words, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? is an apologetic for the traditional view of Adam and Eve

I see two audiences for this book. The main audience is those who share Collins's doctrinal commitments but may be skeptical of, or hostile to, the Adam/ evolution debate. Collins is professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, the denominational seminary of the Presbyterian Church of America (in which he is ordained). The document that governs their theological deliberations is the seventeenth-century Westminster Confession of Faith, which clearly stipulates a first couple. I commend Collins for the courage to engage this group in a conversation about evolution.

The other audience is a broader Christian one, already invested in and knowledgeable about this discussion, but not necessarily committed to Collins's theological predispositions, and not pressured to conform to them.

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? may help the former audience by nudging them toward some openness to accepting scientific realities and addressing the theological ramifications [of evolution]. Those familiar with these sorts of delicate negotiations will quickly perceive where Collins goes out of his way to remind readers of his firm theological commitments.

In the long run, however, I am not convinced that all—or even most—of these readers will feel comfortable following Collins. Collins's synthesis requires an ad hoc Although I am sympathetic to Collins's efforts to blaze such a path (and he is not alone), I do not see how such an ad hoc Adam will calm doctrinal waters, since the Westminster Confession of Faith leaves no room for anything other than a first couple read literally from the pages of Genesis and Paul, and therefore entails a clear rejection of evolutionary theory.

Further, this type of hybrid "Adam," [that is] clearly driven by the need to account for an evolutionary model, is not the Adam of the biblical authors. Ironically, the desire to protect the Adam of scripture leads Collins (and others) to create an Adam that hardly preserves the biblical portrait. Evolution and a historical Adam cannot be merged by positing an Adam so foreign to the biblical consciousness.

As challenging as Collins's synthesis is for conservative Reformed readers, numerous obstacles exist for a broader readership of theologians, scientists, biblical scholars, and others who have circled around the block on these issues more than once. In my estimation, Collins's efforts will not advance this discussion. It is evident that Collins's assessment of the biblical and extrabiblical data is driven by a doctrinal position he feels compelled to defend, which leads him to numerous questionable conclusions, some of which, if presented in other intellectual contexts, would be summarily dismissed.

I outline these problems below.

1. Ancient Near Eastern mythology. Collins stresses that ancient authors were under the conviction that they were writing about real people (which is debatable, but I leave that to the side). Curiously, Collins believes that we need to allow the intentions of these ancient authors to shape our own thinking about whether or not these literary figures actually were real people. But surely, what ancient authors intended does not determine historicity. If Collins's defense of a historical Adam is rooted in such a claim, it is only a matter of time before he reaches his desired end. He need only point to Paul, who (and I agree with Collins here) assumed Adam was the first human, thus making further argumentation superfluous.

Collins finds support for the above notion in the work of the Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen, who claims that ancients tended to mythicize historical accounts (however minimally historical they might be), rather than simply conjuring up mythical stories out of whole cloth. I agree that "mythicized history" accounts well for the manner in which biblical authors spoke of their past (e.g., the "cosmic battle" theme that appears throughout the exodus story).

But Collins spends much time discussing the mythicized history of the flood story. This is a problem for two reasons. First, Collins apparently thinks that what holds for the flood story holds automatically for any part of the primeval history, including the Adam story. But this is not the case. To support his argument that the Adam story is mythicized history, Collins would have needed to focus on origins stories of the ancient Near East. But these origins stories can scarcely be considered "mythicized history." What, after all, is the historical "core" of the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which includes many well-known parallels to Genesis 1, or the creation of humans in Atrahasis, which bears striking similarities to Genesis 2–9? One cannot read these stories and extract from them a historical core to be used as support for a historical Adam.

Second, even though I would concur that a massive local flood around 2900 BC accounts for the existence of the flood accounts in Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, and Genesis, this does not help us address whether the stories themselves have any historical value. The flood-event has been so mythicized in the written accounts that we can conclude only that they have no historical value whatsoever, other than reminding us of an ancient echo of a cataclysmic flood.

Stepping back from these details reveals a much deeper difficulty. Collins is appealing to ancient Near Eastern parallels to Genesis 1–11—the very texts that generated the historical problem of Genesis to begin with—to establish the historicity of Adam. This is a stunning move that, if taken seriously, amounts to a complete reorientation of biblical scholarship on this matter. The monumental impact and pressing hermeneutical and theological challenges of the ancient data cannot be credibly handled like this.

2. Second Temple Judaism. Collins catalogues how Paul's Jewish contemporaries all understood Adam to be a real person, and I generally agree with his observations. But, as with his use of the ancient Near Eastern texts, Collins again presses this observation in a baffling direction. He somehow considers the Second Temple Jewish view of Adam to be evidence that should be included in our own deliberations over human origins. This is an inexplicably odd use of ancient sources. One can only ponder what would happen if we treated all ancient points of view in this manner. The Second Temple view of human origins is not part of the solution—it illustrates the very problem before us, the divide between ancient and modern ways of thinking of origins.

3. The view of other biblical authors. Collins claims that biblical authors all bear witness to Adam as a historical figure (e.g., the author of Chronicles and Luke's genealogy), and so we should follow their lead. But here, too, what biblical authors thought about Adam (sparsely mentioned as he is) does not solve the problem—it exacerbates it.

We all know that the biblical view of origins and scientific models are in tension in many areas, not merely human origins. The whole point of this discussion is to address how we today, confronted with the compelling evidence for human evolution, can view that biblical metanarrative. Stating "the biblical view" of Adam is simply restating the problem, not solving it. Bringing ancient and modern views into conversation requires a willingness to explore hermeneutical and theological territory, not a mere rehearsal of biblical passages. Moreover, as I mentioned above, the hybrid "Adam" Collins leaves us with is most certainly not the Adam of these biblical authors, so it is not clear to me what is gained by this line of argumentation.

4. Scientific data. Collins makes a questionable move by implying that some debates in genomic studies implicitly support a single first pair of humans in relatively recent history (an ad hoc Adam of about 40,000 years ago) from whom all current humans are descended. Although I am neither a geneticist nor the son of a geneticist, Collins seems to dispatch mainstream genomic studies far too quickly in this regard, particularly for a readership with likely little means to evaluate the scientific literature. Also, the sources Collins cites (a 1997 study, years before the human genome was mapped; another study now five years old; an essay from a well-known Christian apologetics organization) would be viewed with suspicion by the mainstream scientific community.

Further, Collins argues that scientific studies on human origins must account for the apparently universal "intuitions" that the world is not as it should be. Since the biblical story of Adam and Eve "makes sense of these intuitions," Collins asserts, science must also account for these intuitions when offering scientific models of human origins. I am sure scientists will want to weigh in on whether religious intuitions are the stuff of scientific investigations.

5. The biblical story. Collins insists that, contrary to common opinion, Adam is a prominent character in the biblical narrative. His catalogue of biblical passages, however, refers to the Garden story in general, not to Adam and Eve specifically—which actually undermines his point about Adam's prominence. (After Genesis 5, Adam is mentioned only one other time in the Old Testament, in 1 Chronicles 1:1).

Further, the Adam that Collins finds typologically in the Old Testament is indeed prominent: Noah, Abraham, David, and others are "Adam figures." But I fail to see why typological Adams require an historical antecedent. Moreover, these typological Adams do not fit the description of Paul's Adam in Romans— the first human, cause of universal sinfulness and death. Collins does not address satisfactorily that the Adam needed to support the Christian metanarrative is absent from the Old Testament.

Collins has not arrived at a conclusion about Adam but has begun with one, and finds creative—but unconvincing—pathways through various scholarly terrains to support a first pair of some sort. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? offers a succession of "it's possible" arguments: casting doubt, however minimal, on alternate positions is presented as counterargument and, ipso facto, as support for the possible plausibility of the traditional position. Such arguments will have little effect on those Christians who are seeking lasting solutions to a very real and pressing hermeneutical problem.

Peter Enns is a biblical scholar, teacher, and author. He is the author of Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Baker, 2005). His book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins (Brazos) has just been released.

What is Pietism?

By way of commentary I would like to say I have always been interested in this subject but somehow never felt much attracted to it personally, as curious as that sounds. Perhaps its my personality or my upbringing that makes me feel that I'll never be holy enough to exhibit this type of behavior. But then again the cynical side of my being always has been wary of my own motives knowing how strong pride and ego can be. And even more, how strong the old man of legalism can be... which I think is our ultimate struggle... that of trying to justify ourselves before God when it is not necessary.

For our self-righteousness is the very thing which must be submitted to God at the time of our rebirth or conversion. And for which Jesus provided through His sacrifice on the Cross when He took our sins upon Himself and gave to us His atoning work of redemption, justification, and reconciliation in transaction. But even then. Even after conversion. We are prone to trying to please God through the works of our old man, or inner sinful self. Which is unnecessary. Why? Because we stand pleasing to God through His Son Jesus. What God wants from us is to rest in the provisional work of His Son. And in reliance upon His Holy Spirit through whom the works of God must flow through our lives. And not the practice of our own sinful works done in the flesh. For the quality of legalism is a very, very strong force within us. Which would do battle with God every day of our lives. Which we must understand is unpleasing to God. And unnecessary. Which has been made vitally dead through the Cross of Christ and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us. Even though the flesh's practice of self-justification (legalism) would seem to live-and-breath through us so unpleasantly day-after-day as we try to live for Jesus in our daily practices and worship. It is but a living, daily struggle that the Spirit of God replaces day-by-day with His grace gifts. His presence. His assurance and direction.

That said, I actually am attracted by the pietistic qualities that I find in believers whom I discover from time to time. What most attracts me in those rare few is that they do not seem to work at this type of behavior. It just is part of their makeup. Its not forced. Its not contrived. It isn't fake. It doesn't seem like a performance that they put on for others. Or a mask that they wear for themselves. Or for show. Or for personal need. It is just part of their makeup. Their behavior. Their personality. Which must somehow be their own personal blessing through the inner grace of the Spirit of God within them. I feel it and it feels strong like a mighty river reaching out to drown me within the mighty embrace of God in His goodness, and love, and peace, and holiness.

But I do not envy it. Nor am I jealous of that behavior and blessing which seems so strong and part of another's being. For I know with assurance that God's inner grace and power is as strong within me as it is within them. However, His grace and peace flows in a different manner through me than through another. And it is this quality that I must recognize and be thankful for. I do not need to grasp it. Nor to seek it (in a sense). Nor pray for more of it (in a sense). It is already mine that God has given to me. It simply flows through me differently. Through mine own personal makeup of who I am. As God has made me before Himself and men. And it is enough. Thanks be to God.

So in a sense, pietism is that quality which inhabits every believer as part-and-parcel of the receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit at the time of spiritual rebirth - the bible calls this rebirth "baptism" or "faith" at times. I do not mention this gift in the sense of a Pentecostal second blessing which I believe to be a contrived doctrine, which I do, and don't, understand of Pentecostalism. But please forgive me for those of you who do follow this teaching. May God's blessings be yours in abundance and in the fullness of His Spirit! But for me, the gift of God of His Holy Spirit comes with rebirth. Not at another time of second blessing. His grace is always full. Always abundant. Because I am always indwelt by God's Spirit at every moment of my life and breath. He came to live within me at the time of my faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. This is God's promise and blessing for each and every believer.

But let us return to the subject at hand... my argument is that because our old man, or inner sinful self of legalism, of self-justification, of self-righteousness, is so very strong, it may force us to seek pietism for all the wrong reasons. Perhaps shame. Guilt. Trauma. Life choices. Whatever these may be. Moreover, when coming across this grand doctrine of pietism we may be urged towards it innocently at first. Perhaps at the direction of a preacher. Or a friend. Or some reading in Scripture. Or through a book. Or from within a pietistic movement. And yet, when starting down this road of behavior and observance, we next meet our old friend "Legalism" telling us to do even more (or less) than what we had first set out to do. It attracts our old man in unnatural ways.

And while making allowance for a wide gulf of pietisticisolations and fleshly denials - I might irreligiously say that perhaps we may apprehend God in our lives by NOT taking these very actions and observations which is so encouraged within our flesh. As example, I see a lot of this behavior during the time of Lent. The denial of foods, activities, disciplines, etc, which are purported to bring us closer to God. And perhaps they do. And perhaps we should deny ourselves and our flesh of those things. But remember that our fleshly man lusts to make us righteous before God through our own efforts, and not through Christ, who gives to us true righteousness. And so, I might suggest an alternative to the shutting "on" and "off" of our daily activities and behaviours in an unnatural manner....

That alternative goes by the term of "moderation." Become moderate in your fleshly appetites. Your body is a gift of God. Praise Him for those unique desires that make you you. If passionate, praise God for this. If driven by your vision of life than seek His help. What may appear as weakness in the flesh may be God's gift of understanding others with those same desires, needs and wants. The days of flailing our flesh, of submitting the body to unnatural experiences must cease in the truths of God's Word. Jesus is man's Justifier. Not ourselves. Not our deprivations. Nor our striven desires to quit the flesh. Use this very same flesh to praise God. It is holy and is what sets us beautifully apart from the angels that look down from heaven upon the grand estate of man.

Seek moderation in your quiet times of reflection before God. And learn in your moderation to find those same quiet times with God in the company of men and in the busyness of life. And in the practices of isolation don't overstay your presence to the destitution of your responsibilities with your family, friends, work mates, and society at large. Be therefore moderate in your isolations and in your walk with God. Do not feed the lusts of the flesh which would make us do unnatural things. Which makes us think that we are pleasing God when perhaps we are only pleasing our own flesh in its self-righteousness. God is our Justifier. Not our own works. Be at peace and know your justification has already come in Christ.

But at the last, this must be your decision. Not mine. Not others. As we each struggle to determine before God how to live as His fleshly servants thankful for our estate and yet resisting the flesh's urges to over-do, or under-do, God's command of rest and peace in Christ's salvation that has come to our souls.  Our prayers go with you in the sincerity of your prayers, and your habits of devotion, while urging you not to forget the remembrance of your gifts of ministry to mankind. For Jesus came to seek and to save. To minister and serve. Not in isolation but in the throngs of humanity desiring living waters. Light. And life. Then let your piety walk and talk. Let it breathe and be seen. Follow then Christ's earthly example. Be then true disciples of Jesus.

So let me end where I first began. Pietism for me just doesn't seem to be my calling. Perhaps due to my faith background, which was an admixture of Lutheran and Baptist. Then again, I have felt its compulsions and have learned to wrestle with my flesh while being thankful for who I am. It is God's gift. In the end, I think it better to learn to find the practice of pietism in the daily walk of life as we live with one another. Not in its abstinences but in its quality of reliance on the quiet strength of God. His peace and wisdom. Pietism can be that quality or condition that may flow through us as naturally as when we commune with nature. Or with mankind. At work. Or at play. And in our daily habits.

Pietism is ours because God's Spirit dwells within us. And it is the Person of the Spirit from whom all qualities of holiness, righteous, and careful pietism flows out. It does not need to be forced. Or contrived. Or faked. It is as natural as our very personalities which flow through our characters, minds, hearts, tongues, eyes, ears, mind, hands and feet. If God dwells in you than you are holy. And you may walk pleasing to Him. God's gift to us is Himself. He is pleased with us as we are. Be satisfied with His work and grace in your life. It is a blessing rich and rewarding. His peace is ours. Which peace we must accept. And practice. And be content in. Know then that Christ is our Piety.

R.E. Slater

January 4, 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Practice of Piety

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/01/04/pietism-what-is-it/#more-23916

by Scot McKnight

January 4, 2012

I was once speaking to an audience of students and professors when a respondent suggested something I had said was “pietistic.” I reacted viscerally to it because for the respondent “pietism” was a slur and evoked such things as individualism, legalism, experientialism, lack of sound theology, and anti-intellectualism, while that respondent thought he was an example of biblical theology and genuine Reformation theology.

It is so easy to stigmatize a group in the way a term is used. Pietism is one of those terms being used by some as a way of calling into question the sufficiency of one’s Christian orientation.

Is Pietism a completion of the Reformation or a distraction? Where do we find Pietism today?

Which all raises the question of what pietism is…

… but before I get there two more ideas. I teach at North Park University, NPU is connected to the Evangelical Covenant Church, the ECC is overtly connected to the Pietism of European Christianity and many draw much of their faith orientation from the likes of Philip Jakob Spener, whose famous 1675 book Pia Desideria (Pious Desires/Wishes) really did set the table for Pietism.

The second point I’d make is this: I didn’t appreciate being called a Pietist in part because my orientation is Anabaptism and not so much Pietism. Do they overlap? Of course, in a number of ways, but they are not the same. Not that I have anything against Pietism and in fact I embrace Pietism (as sketched below), so let me outline how Spener more or less sketched what Pietism was:

 

1. A commitment to the Word of God. (He proposed more attention to small groups!)

2. Spiritual priesthood: all Christians are priests and not just ministers. (He did not equate this with qualification for public ministries as on Sunday morning.)

3. Knowledge of the Christian faith is not enough; practice of the Christian faith is what matters. Love is the real mark.

4. Learn how to conduct ourselves better in public controversies, and here he was talking about theological debates among clergy and Christians in Germany among the Lutherans. He hoped for greater cooperation among Christians. So there is an ecumenical dimension to Pietism.

5. Converted and pious ministers — a necessity.

6. Teachers are to teach toward genuine conversion.

In its essence, Pietism is a Scripturally-sound convertive piety that seeks to reform the church beyond what the Reformation’s successors offered. In other words, Pietism (like Anabaptism) sought to complete the Reformation, and it is combined features of Lutheranism and Calvinism. It’s beginning point is right here: Genuine conversion as a work of God in the inner person leading to a kind of life that reflects that conversion in all ways.

Roger Olson, in his essay called “Pietism: Myths and Realities” (in The Pietist Impulse in Christianity, ed. by C.T. Collins Winn et al), sees a progression from an inner conversion into a devotional life marked by personal relationship with Christ and a commitment to holiness, prayer, devotional reading of the Bible, the cross as saving and as symbol for the Christian life, and evangelism. It is set over against baptismal regeneration, sacramentalism, creedalism, liturgical worship drained of feeling and emotion and the reduction of evangelism to social work. (See Olson, p. 7.)

The Pietist Impulse

Loving the Bible for what it is, not for what I want it to be

http://rachelheldevans.com/bible-series

by Rachel Held Evans

January 2, 2011

My relationship with the Bible has been a lot like that of a daughter to her parents.

I’ve been through the happy, childlike dependency stage, the one where I believed the Bible was impenetrable, the stories of Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, and Joshua and the Battle of Jericho as true and as good as my mother’s scent.

Then, as a young adult, I fumbled through an angry stage, one where I realized that after Joshua “fit the battle of Jericho,” God told him to kill every man, woman, and child in the city, and that coursing through some of my favorite Bible stories were the currents of genocide, xenophobia, patriarchy, and misogyny. I began to doubt what I’d been told about the Bible’s exclusive authority, inerrancy, perspicuity, and internal consistency. Like a teenager suddenly made aware of her parents’ flaws, I screamed and hollered and slammed doors. I sunk into quiet withdrawal, feeling angry and betrayed that the Bible wasn’t what I’d once believed it to be.

Over the past few years, however, I’ve worked up the courage to re-approach the Bible, this time with a different set of expectations, and I get the feeling that I’m in the early stages of learning how to relate to it the way that an adult child relates to her parents, a way that honors and respects the Bible for what it is, not what I want it to be.

The Bible isn’t an answer book.

It isn’t a self-help book.

It isn’t a science or history textbook.

It isn’t even a single book – but rather an ancient collection of letters and laws, prophecies and proverbs, stories and songs, spanning thousands of years and written in languages and cultures far removed from my own.

And so the question I’ve been asking lately—especially after my “year of biblical womanhood”—is how do I relate to the Bible as a grownup? How do I honor it and value it and celebrate it for what it is, not what I want it to be?

So for the next several months, I’ll be dedicating most Mondays to addressing this important topic, at both an academic and personal level. We’ll discuss books (like The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith and Inspiration and Incarnation by Pete Enns). We’ll confront myths (that the Bible presents us with a single prescriptive formula for how to be a woman, that the Bible’s meaning is self-evident, that we can somehow read the Bible without interpreting it). We’ll tackle practical questions (how do we teach the Bible to our children? what should our “devotional” times look like? how can we go on being transformed by the Bible, even in the midst of questions and doubts?). We’ll conduct interviews and roundable discussions (three views on “inspiration,” four views on “inerrancy.”) We’ll talk about our own struggles and triumphs (passages that have changed our lives, passages that have made us doubt). And sometimes, we’ll just “sit” with the Bible (a poetic excerpt, a troubling passage, lectio divina).

As I’ve said before, I believe the evangelical community is on the precipice of engaging in a difficult and honest conversation about how we relate to the Bible, a conversation that may very well divide us, but that also has the potential to be beautifully refining and redemptive. I hope that, in some small way, we can represent the best of that conversation here on the blog by engaging one another and the Bible in honest, civil, and constructive ways.

So, how has your relationship with the Bible changed over the years?

What, specifically, would you like to see from this series?

Comments