Beliefnet
Jesus Creed

100_0098 ds.JPG

We had an interesting discussion Tuesday centered on scripture, the reliability of scripture, and the foundation of our faith: Houston, We’ve Had a Problem. One of the key aspects of this conversation was how we view scripture as reliable in the face of the scientific evidence for an old earth and for evolution. Certainly I think we can defend the reliability of scripture, the reliability of the scientific evidence, and the Christian gospel. We don’t have to disregard any of these. This is where I stand, centered on Christ, moving forward.

As it happens, on Monday and Tuesday there was a related conversation on the BioLogos blog Science and the Sacred focused on how to respond to a recent speech by Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of Southern – a prominent Southern Baptist Seminary. I didn’t mention the speech because I didn’t want to sidetrack our discussion, but I rather expect it was in the background of some of the comments.

Dr. Mohler takes a position quite different from the position I have put
forward on this blog and quite different from the position taken at
BioLogos. In his speech “Why Does the Universe Look So Old?” Dr. Mohler argues “for the exegetical and theological necessity of affirming 24-hour calendar days.” Any old earth view – including Day-Age or Framework – is inadequate. If science appears to contradict the plain reading of scripture – scripture plays the trump card.

And when it comes to the exegetical issues I will tell you that I think the exegetical defense of a 24-hour calendar day is sufficient. In other words, the exegetical cost–the cost of the integrity and interpretation of scripture–to rendering the text in any other way, is just too high. But I want to suggest to you that the theological cost is actually far higher.

You can find a video of  Dr. Mohler’s speech at the Ligonier Ministries 2010 National Conference here (It doesn’t play for me in firefox – but works fine in IE8). BioLogos has also posted a transcript of the speech if you would rather read it. You can find Darrel Falk’s response here and Karl Giberson’s here. (Added: Peter Enns’s response, just posted today, is here.)

Dr. Mohler’s theological reasons are rooted
in his understanding of the biblical narrative of creation, fall,
redemption, consummation or new creation (which actually is not much
different from mine). He calls to task Bruce Waltke, John Stott, JI
Packer, Bernard Ramm, and several more – laying down the gauntlet. He
calls to task the evangelical elite, professors at Christian
institutions. We are witnessing, he feels, a head-on collision between
science and scripture, the Christian Gospel and evolution. Only one will
remain standing at the end of the day. There is only one possible
position:

Our only means
of intellectual rescue, brothers and sisters, is the speaking God, who
speaks to us in scripture, in special revelation. And it is the
scripture, the inerrant and infallible word of God that trumps
renderings of general revelation, and it must be so. Otherwise we will
face destruction of the entire gospel in intellectual terms.

This is an interesting speech – he lays
out his positions and his reasons for them quite clearly.  He suggests
that the world looks old because God made it whole (a mature creation
view); that it looks old because it bears testimony to the effects of
sin – in its groaning.

At the end of the day, if I’m asked the question “why does the
universe look so old?” I’m simply left with the reality that the
universe is telling the story of the glory of God. Why does it look so
old? Well that, in terms of any more elaborate answer, is known only to
the Ancient of Days. And that is where we are left.

I am not disturbed that Dr. Mohler feels
that the YEC position is the preferable position. Nor am I disturbed
that he argues for his position. We need to have this conversation. I am
concerned that he dismisses the evangelical “elite” as compromised and
compromising. I am concerned that he makes it a battle rather than a
conversation. I am concerned that  he sides with Jerry Coyne, Michael
Shermer and Richard Dawkins on this and casts it as a fight to the
death.

But lets consider it a bit
deeper.

How would you
respond to Dr. Mohler’s arguments?

More importantly how would you respond to a Christian
struggling with these ideas?  Someone who finds the discrepancies
between what Dr. Mohler calls “the common sense natural reading” of
Genesis and the evidence of science disturbing and is looking for a  way
forward?  One who finds that this discrepancy undermines faith?

If you agree with Dr. Mohler – why?

And please – keep it civil and
helpful.

If you are
interested in a look at the strength of the evidence for an old earth
from a Christian perspective, The
Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth

by Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley lays out the evidence in a
readable form. This is a great place to start.

If you wish to contact me, you may do so at
rjs4mail[at]att.net

Previous Posts
Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus