Random stuff on evolution

I've been listening and reading to lots of Christian views on evolution recently. There are two things that frustrate me about most of them.

Firstly, that they seem to focus on whether generic theism is compatible with evolution. Unfortunately that is comparitively easy compared to the question about whether evolution is compatible with the teaching of the Bible. In my opinion, Alvin Plantinga in this excellent series of articles from 1991 asks the best questions and comes up with the best answers.

I have a soft spot for Alvin, after reading just a few pages of his writing helped me a massive amount when I was doubting the reality of God more than any point in my Christian life. He has helped me a lot again, not least in arguing that there is nothing wrong with being an agnostic on the question:

"Hasker apparently believes that if I reject [The Theory of Common Ancestery] as improbable, then (if I am proceeding properly) I must be prepared to suggest and endorse some other view of the same specificity or same logical strength as TCA. Now at first glance, anyway, that seems wrong. I think Cardinal X will be the next Pope; you think that is unlikely, but don't have a candidate of your own; there is no one such that you think it is more likely than not that he will be the next pope. Is there something wrong with your procedure? I think not."

My favourite quotation from all my reading so far has been from him too:

"accepting the view that evolution is certain is itself adaptive for life in graduate school and academia generally."

Nice.

The second thing that frustrates me is how often Christians retreat to something very similar to the non-overlapping Magesteria Dawkins criticises in The God Delusion. Many Christian responses to evolution seem to fit right into the nature/grace dualism, Schaeffer, and before him, Bavinck criticised (HT Leithart):

“The sharpness of this contrast between natural and supernatural runs the grave risk of dualistically separating (supernatural) revelation from creation and nature. Special revelation should never be separated from its organic connection to history, the world, and humanity. Stated theologically, the religious antithesis should be between grace and sin and not between grace and nature.” On nature/grace premises, “What is distinctively Christian is . . . identified with and restricted to the ecclesiastical; for the world to be influenced in a Christian direction it needs to submit to the domination of the church. The nature/grace dualism also fuels the opposite of world dominaton. . . . Special revelation is not seen as entering into the fabric of the world and humanity but as floating outside and above it....

The Reformation revolted against this worldview. . . . The reality of the incarnation militates against any nature/grace dualism; the gospel is not hostile to the world as creation but to the world under the dominion of sin, the alien element that has insinuated itself into the world. Revelation and creation are not opposed to each other, for creation itself is a revelation. . . . The Reformation sought a Christianity that was hostile, not to nature but only to sin, and had a reforming and sanctifying effect upon natural life as a whole, including the world of culture, society, and politics. In the Reformation the adage came into its own: nature commends grace; grace emends nature.”

Meeting in the middle

I think this comment of Bavinck is fascinating:

"But it is common to all those who take the ‘middle way’ to show a greater preference ‘for that extreme they go halfway to than for that from which they go halfway’" (Reformed Dogmatics, 3:532, HT: Steve Duby)

I think that explains a lot of discussions and tensions between Christians. Their convictions about theology and practice may be very similar, but more important than their present position is their personal history.

For example, two people may wholeheartedly confess that they believe in "the forgiveness of sins [AND] the resurrection of the body". But the person who was brought up believing that forgiveness of sins was the sum-total description of salvation will by most alert to any non-physical understanding of salvation, whereas the person brought up a legalist will be especially protective about God’s free-grace toward sinners.

If we understood people work this way there would be a slowness to express your initial instinctual response, more mutual appreciation of others concerns, and therefore less conflict.

The essence of the Christian religion

Shamelessly stolen from Tony Reinke because I'd like to remember it. A stripped down Apostles' Creed with a touch more of a redemptive-historical flavour?

"The essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that

the creation of the Father,

ruined

by sin,

is restored

in the death of the Son of God,

and re-created

by the grace of the Holy Spirit

into a kingdom of God."

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:61.

Bavinick on the Lutherans and the Reformed

I'm supposed to have loads of free time at the moment but for some reason haven't had time to do much thinking recently, and hence no blogging. But as usual I return to blogging when I need to get down a quote for future reflection...

I found the quote from Bavinick below quite helpful in my continuing quest to get a handle on Lutheranism. It was mentioned in a comment here which follows an interesting post and discussion.

The difference seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God.

For the Reformed, therefore, election is the heart of the church; for Lutherans, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. Among the former the primary question is: How is the glory of God advanced? Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved? The struggle of the former is above all against paganism - idolatry; that of the latter against Judaism - works-righteousness. The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the "wherefore" of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the "that" and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. From this difference in principle, the dogmatic controversies between them (with respect to the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc.) can be easily explained. (Reformed Dogmatics 1:177)

The temptation in such discussions is to start getting partisan and claim superiority over the other. I think that is difficult position to maintain. As John H comments 'Vive la différence'!

Incidental notes:

1. I like Kletos Sumboulos' comment that '"Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved?" should read "Among the latter it is: What has Christ done for us?"'
2. I wonder how this links to Melanchthon's famous comment 'to know Christ means to know his benefits' which I am still trying to properly understand.