Christianity Today - Modern Liberalism and Theological Ignorance!

I read an article in the November issue of Christianity Today written by singer, songwriter and author, Carolyn Arends. The article, God Did It, was a retelling of a discussion between the author and her son as he was considering what college to attend. The young man was interested in attending a Christian college to avoid the teaching of evolution, while his mother suggested that may not be best. Her reasons for encouraging him to consider a secular college were rooted in her belief that evolution may be true and the Bible/Christianity can still be true if it is. The issue of whether evolution is true is not something I am prepared to discuss at length here, although I believe the six-day creation story of Genesis is literal and has not been refuted by scientific data. What I take great exception to is the author’s suggestion that evolution and the Bible/Christianity could be reconciled and her lack of theological understanding regarding the implications.

Her reasons for accepting the possibility of evolution being true in the article are not a discussion of whether science has proven it, but centered on other issues. The first reason given for why evolution and the Bible/Christianity may be compatible is that Billy Graham once said he would see no problem for the Bible/Christianity if evolution were true. The quote she shared with her son, from 1964, from such a well known Christian, led her son to respond, "Maybe you’re not a total heretic". Is Billy Graham a famous evangelist? Yes! Is he a theologian who is known for his deep and thorough understanding of theology? No! Just because someone is well known does not make them an expert. The place to go to see if someone is a heretic is the Bible!

The second reason given for saying evolution and the Bible/Christianity may be compatible is the teaching of some un-named Hebrew scholars, who are said to believe in the authority of Scripture, but have no problem with seeing the Genesis creation account as less than literal. I have several problems with this, not the least of which is, who are these scholars and what do they mean by authoritative? The reasons specifically given from these scholars for the non-literal/non-scientific reading of the creation account is that the Bible was not written to us as the original audience, so we can't know what it is teaching us, unless we are sure what it meant to them. This is a reasonable hermeneutic principle, but should we not err on the side of believing it was teaching exactly what it says, unless given strong evidence from the Bible to think it is teaching something different?

The next reason attributed to the Hebrew scholars is that "the Bible is not a book", but rather a collection of books written at different times and in different genres. Somehow this means that what is in Genesis can be misleading and totally contradictory to reality, and that is somehow okay because it is a genre that was used in that time by that author. When considering genres in the Bible, it is sometimes easy to see or suspect it is using non-literal language based on the context. However, when you see things presented with very specific time frames and given as God's direct words/actions, as we see in the creation account, it is hard to believe any God- fearing person/people would have felt comfortable proclaiming such things so specifically, unless they believed it was literally true.

However, even though the author presents these reasons for the possibility of reconciling the Bible and evolution, I think her real motive comes out in her last argument, which is not scientific or biblical, but pragmatic. Following a brief discussion of why young people are leaving the church, it is said, "the cognitive dissonance between the empirical data and what we are asking them to believe is too great". So, is this a search for truth from the Bible and true science? No, it is a capitulation to the culture out of fear of losing people from the church.

Much like the liberals of old, we are being told to bring our beliefs in line with those of the age we live in. As John Shelby Spong suggested we must ditch the violent God of Jesus and the crucifixion if Christianity is to survive, Carolyn Arends’ bottom line is that we must be willing to reconsider the creation account's truthfulness, if we are to keep people, especially young people, in the church.

This is a grave error!

You can't have it both ways. You can't remove the offense of the scriptures to get or keep people in the church and still have the subject of the scriptures and the basis of the church, Jesus Christ, end up in His true and proper place. Spong’s liberalism makes the cross a fairytale, while Carolyn Arends’ liberalism leaves us with a Jesus who comes to redeem a people with no literal Adam, Eve, original sin or fall from which to redeem us. The reality is that the Bible is one book. Yes, it was written over thousands of years, by many authors and contains different literary genres, but it is one story, with one subject and everything in it points to Him, including the events surrounding creation!

I am very concerned that Carolyn Arends and her publishers at Christianity Today would feel comfortable publishing this article. She says she still believes the creation account, but wants to be sure we aren't being too dogmatic in case it isn't true, and so we won't loose young people from the church. OK, but if the creation account has not been proven wrong, do you really want to be telling the world, especially our young people, that there are good reasons for rejecting it? Dare anyone named a Christian handle God's Word so lightly?