Yesterday, Justin Taylor did a post questioning the calendar day interpretation of Gen 1. To judge by reactions I've seen, this generated some shock waves.
Some people seem to think this represents a sinister shift away from the status quo ante. Now, I don't think Justin made a very strong case for his position.
But I'm struck by how many people seem to find his position surprising or even shocking. Yet OEC has been pretty mainstream in evangelism, including Calvinism and/or Dispensationalism, for generations.
The SBC is noncommittal on YEC. Reformed denominations like the OPC, PCA, and URC are noncommittal on YEC. Likewise, most prominent Reformed seminaries are noncommittal on YEC, viz. WTS, RTS, WSC, Covenant Seminary, Knox Seminary.
An exception is GPTS, which represents Old School Southern Presbyterian theology. But even R. L. Dabney, in his old age, promoted the ruin-reconstruction theory in his epic poem ("The Christology of the Angels").
Likewise, I don't believe that DTS, the flagship of Dispensational seminaries, has ever been committed to YEC. And many venerable Dispensationalists espouse the gap theory/ruin-reconstruction theory, or the day-age theory.
So Justin's position doesn't represent a novel trend or sudden defection from the status quo ante. Why do some critics act so surprised or shocked? Are they just unacquainted with modern church history?
Keep in mind that this is distinct from evaluating his proposal. I'm just struck by how many of his critics find this startling.
One reason may be if this is seen in the context of concerted efforts like BioLogos, John Walton, and Peter Enns to redirect the church and redefine Christian theology. But to my knowledge, there's no evidence that Justin is part of that agenda. To the contrary, I believe he's behind the publication of recent books defending the historicity and inerrancy of Scripture.