I largely agree with this post by Peter Enns:
Of course, Enns is using evolution as a wedge tactic to further his own agenda. He's hoping Christians will break in his direction, whereas I think they should break in the opposite direction.
Indeed, he's in no position to snicker, for he himself is trying to rebuild the ship after it left dry dock.
It's odd, but not surprising, to find professing Christians who fight for evolution rather than the Bible. They act as if we should be martyrs for evolution rather than Scripture. As if evolution is the doctrine to die for. They do battle with critics of evolution.
Professing Christians who are, by turns, desperately or fawningly laboring to harmonize evolution with the Bible remind me of the Bates Motel. In the Hitchcock movie, Norman dutifully changes the sheets in every room every day, even though the motel is perpetually vacant. In the TV series, Norma buys the motel, sight unseen. Unbeknownst to her, the unscrupulous realtor never informed her that City Hall has plans to divert traffic away from the motel by rerouting the main drag.
Theistic evolutionists are trading the Bible for the Bates Motel. In exchange, they will have a vacant motel on the far side of town.
As I have thought of Theistic evolution as a possible solution, I see that it is a fading paradigm. I re-define the terms to my own personal "God Did it" account. Who am I without my modern blather? If I repeat the words of 6 day Creation, how much of a hypocrite am I? God crowds my modern mind out--- There is not any hypothetical Natl Geo movie of ancient animals, or any possible Nova cosmological show of the early universe? With God in the room, a small camera would not capture the action. What color is the salmon of 500 thousand years ago? Is red even red in the Mind of God?
ReplyDeleteRob.
Enns says: "Some may not be able or willing to consider critiquing and adjusting their theological system. That’s fine with me. They don’t need to be a part of the dialogue."
ReplyDeleteDoes this strike anyone else as intellectually hostile? Enns seems to recognize that core Evangelical convictions like inerrancy have the power to stop his "Evangelical Evolution" movement in its tracks, and this comment appears as a thinly veiled attempt to discredit and marginalize faithful Bible believing scholars who aren't willing to follow him in bending to the whims of culture. He casually fences off the table and leaves them out of the "dialogue."
What will Enns' Evangelical ship look like once he has taken all of the ballast out? Blown and tossed by the wind . . .