The term ‘theistic evolutionist’ has recently been applied to me by my pastor who is a young earth creationist. But I have to admit I am a little wary of applying this term, or label, ‘theistic evolutionist’ to myself. I mean, in general, I agree with it – I believe in God, and I believe in evolution, therefore I am a ‘theistic evolutionist’ – but the problem I have with it is it is a loaded term. Ted Peters, in a current article in Sojourners Magazine, mentions that the term ‘theistic evolutionist’ is “a phrase actually coined by the creationists as a term of derision” who they “accuse of selling out to the enemy”. Now I honestly don’t know how true that is, but it does give me pause before applying it to myself.
By way of example, I have similar feelings about the term ‘evangelical’, which in many ways has been hijacked by right-wing religious politicos. I currently go to an evangelical church here in Utah, but I can’t apply the label ‘evangelical’ to myself, for it has lost much of its previous meaning and has now come to represent someone who is pro-Republican, pro-Bush, pro-war, and anti-gay anything, someone who has practically sold their soul to the devil in order to end abortion, who demand that doctors keep brain-dead bodies alive, and yet they are pro-death penalty, and of course, creationist. The term ‘evangelical’ today conjures up many of these concepts in people when they hear the word, but none of them really apply to me.
The label ‘theistic evolutionist’ is similar, but unlike the term ‘evangelical’ it is mostly defined by its detractors, not its advocates. Because of this there are few positives to the term. It carries connotations of being a half baked compromiser who can’t make up his mind what he wants to believe. Either he has no real faith, and/or he simply can’t see reality. I disagree, of course.
Anyway, just musing over some terms and how they are used, anyone else with some thoughts?
2 comments:
This has very little to do with semantics, but oh well...
You called yourself a Christian. This, first and foremost, means that you have accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.
In order to accept Jesus as one's Lord, one must believe that He was the perfect sacrifice that can cleanse one of unrighteousness.
If Jesus was perfect, then He never sinned. If He never sinned, than everything He said was true, because we assume that lying is a sin by definition.
We also assume, based on the Bible, that the Father and Jesus are part of a perfect Trinity, three in one. Therefore, if Jesus has never sinned, then neither has God the Father.
If God has never lied (sinned), then the entire Bible must be true, because both the Father and the Son referred to the Bible as God's holy Word.
If the entire Bible is true, then, the earth CANNOT BE as old as any evolutionary theory would require.
Let me explain the logic: the Bible gives us the exact bloodline of humans from Adam to Jesus. This bloodline is complete, containing every name from Adam to Noah to Abraham to David to our Lord. We assume from many sources that Jesus lived approximately 2,000 years ago. We also assume, based on the truthfulness of God, that this bloodline is accurate. Therefore, at absolute most, 15,000 years or so have passed between the Garden and the present day.
If you are following my logic, you understand why the majority of born-again Christians find it difficult to accept the idea of a 4.5 billion year old earth, and also why they find it difficult to accept evolution as a viable theory.
I follow your logic, but I have to disagree with it. The logic you’re using assumes that God can only say the literal truth and that if it isn’t literally true then it would be a lie (“If God has never lied (sinned), then the entire Bible must be true… If the entire Bible is true, then, the earth CANNOT BE as old as any evolutionary theory would require”). But I think God can express his truth through myths and stories just as easily as anything else, and that doing so wouldn’t make them lies.
As for the exactitude of those genealogies, I admit I don’t fully understand them, but I do believe that since they are part of ancient documents, from a different time and culture, that to look at them in a 21st century American way will only produce error. I think when we sit down and try to look at these documents through the eyes of the original audience we will see something different.
Post a Comment