Tag: SBC

Book Briefs: “Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation? Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Science and Faith are at a crossroads in today’s world. The new atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Hawking are pushing the conclusion that Science rules out Faith. No need to believe in a “God of the gaps” anymore. Everything can be explained by Science.

Christians can seem to corroborate this view by disputing the widely held claims of Science and clinging stubbornly to a young earth based on their interpretation of the first book of the Bible. Case in point. You either take Science, or you hold to your Faith.

Increasingly, evangelical Christians are moving away from an “anti-Science” approach (which itself largely stems from the 1961 book The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris), and embracing an “old-earth creationist” approach which has an affinity with evangelical positions held widely from the 18th through early 20th Centuries. Two of the most influential Christian organizations which respect Science and hold to an old earth, yet also stand against the new atheism and its denial of a Creator, are Reasons to Believe (RTB) and BioLogos.

The main difference between the two is RTB’s denial of evolution as the mechanism by which God created animals and man. Instead RTB believes in a series of special creative acts throughout Earth’s long history. BioLogos on the other hand, sees evolution as testament to God’s handiwork and not at all antithetical to a belief in human exceptionalism and humanity’s creation in the Image of God. Their approach is termed evolutionary creation.

Such is not a small difference, but over the past several years representatives from both of these organizations have met routinely to dialogue and better understand their respective positions. This book is one of the results of that ongoing interaction. The moderators for their meetings have been professors at a number of Southern Baptist institutions, who mostly represent a young earth approach. Each chapter in the book starts with one of the Southern Baptist moderators presenting the stage for that chapter’s topic and asking questions of both organizations.

Rather than being a typical “two views” book, the use of moderators keeps the tone gracious and the result is an introduction to the views of both organizations on a host of important topics related to the intersection of Science and Faith generally, and on the evidences for evolution in particular. Key topics covered include how each group explains natural evil and death predating “the Fall”, what range of options concerning Adam and Eve are viable positions for each group, what role does natural theology play, how does the Bible inform their scientific positions, how is the fossil evidence for evolution and particularly the hominids best explained, and how does genetics support each group’s position.

This book delivered a fantastic introduction to each organization and points the way forward for further research. It will introduce people to viable evangelical positions and raise questions and evidences that the reader may not have thought of before. It is a technical book, and there will be sections over the head of the average reader, but for the most part the moderators do a good job of keeping things grounded.

For those who hold to a young-earth, there is not much in this volume that directly addresses the evidences for an old-earth and why each organization holds to that understanding, even though one or two of the moderators seem to ask for some of this. Instead both groups agree and move on to the areas where they disagree. In a few of the chapters, there are points I would have raised for or against a given position that don’t arise. I am surprised, for instance, that the fusing of two chromosomes found in chimpanzees into a single chromosome found in humans is not brought up (as potential evidence for evolution to be dealt with) in the chapter on genetics. That being said, I learned a lot more about genetics than I had previously, and that illustrates the only real problem I have with this book: there is so much more that could be said in any of these chapters! But all things considered, the editors do a great job of including as much content as they do and still keeping the book readable.

Above all, this book does a great job illustrating how Christians can and should interaction on such issues. The gracious spirit and charitable dialogue found here should be an example for all of us as we think through how best to comprehend the data that Science continues to bring forth in light of the bedrock reality of the Authority of Scripture. This book goes along way toward lighting the way for those who seek to embrace both Science and Faith, and at the very least it advances the discussion in meaningful ways.

Blurbs:
“This conversation is definitely worth listening to! The book is deeply satisfying, with knowledgeable and articulate advocates of differing positions expounding on areas of disagreement clearly as well as respectfully. At the same time, it is deeply unsatisfying, but in a good way: I found my own assumptions challenged, my horizons stretched. I think differently after reading it. An excellent job by all participants, moderators included.”
—C. John “Jack” Collins, professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis

“This Reasons to Believe and BioLogos conversation is highly commendable, and it’s important for a number of reasons. First, its tone is irenic, gracious, and humble. Second, its participants trust the Christian integrity of the other conversation partners. Third, it takes the authority of Scripture seriously as participants grapple with the implications of biblical interpretation in light of scientific discovery. Fourth, the Southern Baptist theologians serving as moderators are effective in guiding and focusing the conversation as they call for clarification and further elaboration from both sides. Finally, this conversation takes for granted the strong evidence for an ancient earth, allowing the discussion to push past the young-earth versus old-earth debate to far more pressing issues needing attention within the Christian community”
—Paul Copan, professor and Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University, coeditor of The Dictionary of Christianity and Science

“Origins, particularly human origins, continues to be a controversial issue among evangelical Protestants. In Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation?, the organizations BioLogos and Reasons to Believe model a respectful interchange of ideas in spite of their significant differences. The result is an intelligent and illuminating discussion of this crucial and timely topic.”
—Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont College

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from IVP.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by IVP Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Three Historic Approaches to Separation

~ Bob Hayton

Just wanted to call your attention to Justin Taylor’s brief history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that he recently shared on his blog. A key section in this brief history, which focuses on the years 1920 through 1962, is Taylor’s thoughts about “three approaches to separation.”

Three Approaches to Separatism

Emerging from this 1957 division, and continuing through the intra-denominational controversies of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention into the 1980s, there was conservative agreement that personal holiness was a necessity and that separation from moral sin was required. But beneath this general principle, there were three overlapping approaches to separation within fundamentalism.

First, there were denominational reformers who believed they should stay within a denomination and fight for its doctrinal and moral purity.

Second, there were denominational separatists who believed that faithful Christians should extricate themselves from denominations and professing Christians influenced by modernism and therefore apostasy.

Third, there were ecclesiastical separatists who were also secondary separationists, refusing to have fellowship with fellow conservative dissenters who did not withdraw from apostate denominations.

What must be noted here, and is often overlooked in discussions of fundamentalism, is that the original fundamentalists were in categories 1, and sometimes 2. But category 3 was largely the result of post-1957 fundamentalism and represents a new phase of development. (Read Taylor’s whole article)

I agree that historically, the third viewpoint on separation gradually grew over time. What fundamentalist critics of John Piper, Mark Dever, Tim Keller and others fail to note, is that often these conservative evnagelical leaders have a lot in common with historic fundamentalists who held to the first approacth to separation. The conservative turnaround of the SBC is testament to the fact that the second and third approaches to separation are not always necessary.

Are We Guilty of Homophobia?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently was quoted as saying the following in an interview about homosexuality.

“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia… We’ve used the “˜choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”

He was then asked to defend this statement in the recent SBC Annual Convention. The video of the exchange with SBC pastor and blogger, Peter Lumpkins is here.

I happen to agree with Mohler, especially as he clarified his statements. The Associated Baptist Press summarized Mohler’s response to the question by Lumpkins:

Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”

“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares — not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation — the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”

“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”

“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”

Now the use of “homophobia” is a sticky subject, for sure. But I do agree that Mohler is right. And in this, I echo the sentiments of blogger Elijah Friedeman, and want to quote him at some length (HT: The Aquila Report).

I realize that much of what Mohler said flies in the face of conservative Christianity. No one likes to be called homophobic. And religious people especially don’t like to be called to repentance. But Albert Mohler is absolutely right.

What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice?Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.

I know that many conservative Christians want to turn homosexuality into an easy choice. But it doesn’t work like that. Don’t get me wrong. Everyone has a choice about whether or not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage. But not everyone has a say about whom they’re sexually attracted to.

There are a lot of people in the world with addictive personalities – they’re addicted easily – these people don’t have to give in to their addictive temptations, but they have a problem that can’t be solved with a choice – a problem that only Jesus can fix.

Homosexuality is much the same. Homosexuals have deep-rooted attraction to the same gender that they can’t solve with a choice. Mohler stated that homosexuality, like any other sin, requires a Savior. When did that become a radical sentiment? Last I checked, it’s a biblical concept.

But I have a feeling that most people disagreed with Mohler, because he labeled Southern Baptists as homophobic.

I can’t speak to homophobia in Southern Baptist churches. I’ll have to trust Mohler on that front (apparently he explained exactly how Southern Baptists are homophobic, but I can’t find the transcript). But I know from what I’ve seen, read, and heard, a form of homophobia is very present in many conservative churches.

For some reason there is an irrational fear of and extreme aversion to homosexuals in a lot of churches. We may not come right out and say that we think homosexuals are nasty creatures, but if you read between the lines, it’s pretty easy to pick up on. This is homophobia.

We should not elevate homosexuality above other sins. If we condemn homosexuality as sin, we must also condemn other forms of sexual immorality as sin.

I’ve seen many religious people castigate homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to the other, more pervasive, forms of sins in the church. I’m more concerned about the prevalence of divorce in churches than I am about a few cases of homosexuals trying to silence their critics.

What do you think? Is Mohler totally off base? As for me, I’m standing with him on this one.

For more on this question, see other articles on homosexuality I’ve posted here on my blog. You’ll find reviews of two helpful books I’ve read on this topic.

Al Mohler, The Fundamentalist

~ Bob Hayton ~ 22 Comments

Christianity Today is out with a cover story on Al Mohler and how he lead the push to purge the SBC from liberal theology by reforming the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary. The article is entitled “The Reformer”, and certainly Mohler is that. It truly is an amazing story, even if the author of the CT story makes it very clear she doesn’t approve.

What struck me when reading this article was how similar Mohler’s battle for truth at Southern is to the battle that was waged at Princeton in the 1920s by the likes of J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til. The only difference is that Mohler won and turned back the tide of liberalism at Southern. He didn’t have to leave and found his own seminary, like Machen and Van Til did (when they founded Westminster).

“Fundamentalist” isn’t a popular label these days. And it’s meanings are many and varied. But by the truest, historic sense of the term, Al Mohler would have to be considered a fundamentalist. The question is, would today’s fundamentalists (of the independent Baptist variety) accept him?

Sadly, no. At least the vast majority would find some reason to distrust him or avoid allowing him entrance into the “seriously-devoted-to-God” club. Some would point to Mohler’s chairing of a Billy Graham crusade in Louisville as an act that belies Mohler’s true character (or at least points to something worthy of separation), while others would point to his more recent signing of the Manhattan Declaration. As an aside, that crusade carefully excluded the participation of Catholics, and Mohler’s explanation for why he signed the MD should be acceptable to any but the most die-hard of critics.

This is precisely the problem I have with most fundamentalists today. They refuse to get out of their box and see the world through non-sectarian lenses. Mohler is a convention man””not independent, like the fundamentalists. But the original fundamentalists were forced out of their conventions and denominations. Separation from doctrinal error, and militancy for truth have more than one manifestation. And from the fundamentalist side of the aisle, at a point several decades from the original conflicts with modernism which gave Fundamentalism its name, the thought that someone may be employing some form of separation from within a denomination doesn’t seem to register.

Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis recently explained how separation is a hallmark of what it means to be a fundamentalist:

…fundamentalism was always about more than belief in the fundamentals. It was about doing battle for the fundamentals, an attitude that came to be called militancy….

At first, the fundamentalists hoped that the liberals would leave the Christian denominations peacefully and quietly (a hope that, in retrospect, seems astonishingly naïve). Later, the fundamentalists attempted to purge liberal influences from their denominations by expelling the liberals. Failing in that, the fundamentalists themselves severed contact with the liberals by leaving the denominations. In all three forms, however, fundamentalism was about separation, i.e., ecclesiastical non-cooperation with apostasy.

If the original fundamentalists could have had their choice, they would likely have stayed in the denominations. They would have loved to see Al Mohler’s outcome in their own context. It didn’t work out that way for them. Unfortunately, many of the heirs of the fundamentalists can’t give Christian support and brotherly affirmation to their conservative brethren like Al Mohler who have so profoundly changed the SBC for the better. Instead, they find ways to maintain a skeptical distance.

I hope this attitude of distrust will diminish. I hope a greater striving for unity and a mutual welcoming of others as true brothers in the faith, will flourish. And I am happy to see signs of change in fundamentalism. A conference is scheduled at a fundamentalist seminary where Kevin Bauder and other fundamentalist leaders will be speaking alongside Mark Dever, a well-kown SBC leader. I trust this kind of thing will continue.

Fundamentalists have a lot to offer the wider church, and it’s a shame that they are so ignored and marginalized today. Sadly, this is due in large part to their own distrusting attitude toward even the best of evangelicalism””pastors and leaders who are often fundamentalists at heart, going by different names.

How Should Fundamentalists View Conservative Evangelicals? Kevin Bauder Weighs In

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In the eyes of many fundamentalists (and by that term I’m referring to the card-carrying, independent Fundamental Baptist variety), if you aren’t either a fundamentalist or an out-and-out liberal, then you must be a new evangelical.   “Neo” is a derogatory term, mind you, not the name of “the one” who will save mankind, ala The Matrix….

Fundamentalists for the most part like solid lines of demarcation between their group and the others.   Those others, whether they be conservative evangelicals in general, or Southern Baptists, or Calvinists, their main problem is that they aren’t “one of us”. And this means they can’t be trusted. Furthermore, their problems run deeper than what Bible version they carry.   They must be linked in some way, with Rome or liberalism or any other bad thing we can think of.

Problem is, they are independent thinkers, they don’t toe the fundamentalist party line when it comes to “worldly” amusements or cultural taboos. They actually respect Billy Graham to some level, and they don’t think any measure of Calvinism is satanic.

Perhaps the biggest problem, at least it appears so to us who are on the outside looking in, is that these “others” are influential. Leaders like John MacArthur and John Piper, use the Bible carefully and are “building a following” (at least that’s what Fundamentalists might think). Young unsuspecting Christians are led away into all kinds of error and wickedness when they follow these “others”.

I’m not far from the truth. And now that I’ve painted that not too rosy picture, let me encourage you to go read Kevin Bauder’s thoughts on conservative evangelicals. He is incensed at the party-spirit of fundamentalists which view these “others” as enemies or opponents. Rather, they are to be esteemed for their “defense of the gospel”. And this esteem and even a level of partnership is possible without an all out embracing of their every peculiar position on questions of worldliness and matters of secondary doctrine.

I do pray Bauder represents a changing of the guard and that the fundamentalists of today will share their deep-seated faith in and practice of the Bible with their evangelical brethren, come out from their holy huddles and not be afraid of being impacted by some of the clear thinking, Bible-prizing conservative evangelical leaders God had graced the church with today.

Let me offer a few excerpts and then encourage you to go read Bauder’s essay which says all of this in a more scholarly way.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy….

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

…

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today….