I am very curious how Walton and several other Wheaton profs I have read rationalize to themselves how their views are consistent with Wheaton’s Statement of Faith, which all students and faculty sign and is taken very seriously by the school (as in the Larycia Hawkins debacle earlier this year). I have discussed with more than one Wheaton alum how we would have trouble signing the SoF in good conscience now even though, ironically, for many of us it was theology, science, and critical thinking skills that we were taught at Wheaton that pushed us to that place of discomfort.
"WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness.
WE BELIEVE that our first parents sinned by rebelling against God’s revealed will and thereby incurred both physical and spiritual death, and that as a result all human beings are born with a sinful nature that leads them to sin in thought, word, and deed." http://www.wheaton.edu/About-Wheaton/Statement-of-Faith-and-Educational-Purpose
I don’t think we can speak for what other people believe. But all the same, a “historical Adam” is not the same as “historical parents of the entire human race.” And saying you think the Genesis account describes six literal days is not the same thing as saying you are a LSD creationist.
Christy, wow, I did not know it would be that restrictive and specific, although I’ve heard those issues raised. IDK, but an archetype view doesn’t preclude a historical Adam. So that view may be safe.
I’m not a theologian. I just know which ones provide the most satisfying views to me. In addition to Lamoureux’s hermeneutics making the most sense to me even before you get to the Adam issue, he’s arguably the most or one of the most qualified, as Ted Davis notes here, educated to the PhD level in Biology and with an M.S. in theology from Regent College in it’s hey-day under J.I. Packer, as well as the PhD level in theology, both with specialty in Genesis. He’s been an atheist and a YEC and literally wrote the book on evolutionary creation (EC), although not the only EC view, of course. He’s probably also teaching in the best place to be unbiased. And, thanks to ASA, BioLogos and Denis, he’s a friend.
I’m sure you’ve probably heard all that.
Of all the papers that are published that I’ve read, I think the last two at this site, are the best theology on the topics that square with a modern science view. They are:
That, and I think there is a good scientific argument that moral agency is inevitable too–as well as part of a Plan. Evolution produces both self-preserving tendencies and empathetic tendencies. That’s largely from books by primatologist Frans de Waal’s and “Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals”. Yet, de Waal says he is reluctant to call any animal other than humans a moral agent. Evolution doesn’t make us sin. As moral agents we choose to. We need redemption.
I studied C. John Collin’s reformed theology Adam book early-on to try and understand why a historical Adam was critical. I wasn’t convinced. But, again, I’m only an armchair theologian.
I guess I’m just relaying what he has shared in public. Perhaps @JohnWalton could clarify. If I misrepresented him, my apologies.
“Historical parents of the entire human race” could be possible (scientifically). Sole progenitor, not so much. But common ancestor (which is consistent with this language) does seem to work. And I agree with you, Walton is not a YEC creationists. Last time we talked about this, he introduced me to (if I remember right) archeological evidence (e.g. the “pottery sequence” and ancient kings) that extends well past 4,000 years ago, exactly when the YEC flood should have happened. Still, his proposal of the temple inauguration would occur over 6 literal days. This makes him a “six literal day” person, right? Though, not necessarily a YEC.
Whatever the case, I’m glad that the many theistic evolutionists at Wheaton (whether @JohnWalton is one or not) can currently operate without reprisal. I hope that continues.
Well, I suppose, I already have asked him. We already know each other and work together in the science for seminaries program. We have talked at length about this. This is me best understanding of his position.
I wasn’t addressing you, but I’m glad you spoke up and answered me, Joshua. Thank you. So you say Walton believes in a literal 6-day creation and a historical Adam? Is his Adam the father of the human race?
This transcript of a Biologos interview with Walton should directly lay to rest the details of where he stands on Adam and Eve. It was done in 2014. It is titled “Interpreting Adam: An interview with John Walton”
Thank you, Mervin. It’s good to have his exact words. So, while John Walton personally professes to believe in a historical Adam, his archetype theological view does not require one. While he’d say the Bible refers to a 6 day account, it is not about a material 6 day creation, so not necessarily literally historically 6 days. Is that how others here understand it? Or is there a better way to say it?
To clarify, my motivations in bringing this whole Walton/Wheaton topic up, was to illustrate (it’s my impression, at least) that people find room for their beliefs in the faith statements they are asked to subscribe to, even if at face value, it doesn’t seem like the statements have that much room for diversity in them. Or maybe I’m naive and institutions like Wheaton have actually carefully worded their statements to allow maximum diversity possible without raising red flags with the more conservative constituency.
I don’t know about Wheaton in this, but I have a conjecture about faith statements generally. I wonder if they get more detailed and specific with time in a kind of arms race with those that are “finding room for their beliefs in them”. I.e. Has there ever been a change of faith statements to be less specific about something so as to be more generous toward diversity? I would guess the opposite is more often true; that faith statements are almost always added to, and almost never subtracted from. But this does cynically presume that a powerful, probably moneyed set of donors is probably playing “Wack-a-mole” with institutional creedal requirements, frantically making sure that any/all heretics (according to whatever is their current bad-boy issue) get safely excluded.
@Keith_Furman, I guess one could be forgiven for not finding Walton’s view to be quite so clear-cut based just on that interview. And black-and-white clarity on every detail is just what creed enthusiasts obsess themselves with, and what historians, theologians, scholars, and those more “in-the-know” probably despise as woefully uninformed pretension to “certainty” on complex issues. Hence the tensions between the two. So, Christy, maybe the poor authors caught in the middle are trying to play just the game you suggest --so that everyone is equally unhappy.
No, Christy, I don’t think you are naive. But, I don’t see much wiggle-room in what you quoted from Wheaton College. It appeared that beloved OT professors Bruce Waltke couldn’t say what he was really thinking until he resigned or he resigned to say what he thought needed to be said. That’s a shame.
On Twitter, I’ve encountered a number of pastors tell me in direct messages that they can’t say what they want to say about evolution or related theology because they’ve taken vows in their denomination or have to abide by creeds established long before there was even a scientific method or telescopes or microscopes.
It wasn’t that long ago that even science in the book of God’s works was murky. Even after the first microscopes, in 1694 scientists were drawing sperm cells with pre-formed babies in them, i.e., the ancient preformatism and “one seed theory” (they thought sperm was the “seed” that had it all)–a woman who couldn’t have children was barren like the soil in which seeds can’t grow. See Slide 38 in Lamoureux’s “Ancient Biology”. Christian creeds and most doctrine was developed long before then, like when St. Augustine thought there really was a solid firmament. The book of God’s works was murky back then. So, they didn’t give much credence to it. Its a totally different story now, of course. Or it should be.
@Mervin_Bitikofer Bingo! Well said. I can’t find it at the moment, but there was a real good article somewhere recently about the gulf between academia and congregants in churches. Even what the theologians are permitted to believe and teach is radical compared to what typically trickles down to congregants of churches. There’s a lot of group-think in evangelical churches I’ve seen to the effect that "seminary is where you go to lose your faith–that’s why it rhymes with “cemetery”. I’m sure pastors are afraid of what might happen to membership and etc. if they say that something scripture states isn’t literally supposed to be true.
I understand the need to protect the gospel from heresy and every wind of doctrine. But, it is a broken system when change is needed–like trying to turn the Titanic, i.e., the good ship Titanic Concordism. Instead of hearing those on the crow’s nest, they shoot them down.
I was just going to add that lest I seem completely anti-creedal in my last post, that we have benefited from early doctrinal watchdogs hammering out heresies of the early church days. As always, discernment is in order. Can self-appointed doctrinal watch-dogs of today really compare themselves to early church fathers? Most today would aspire to that comparison, thinking they are protecting precious things that have roots back to those times. But I suspect that a lot of our doctrinal winds and particularities today have their roots in soils that are only centuries old rather than millennia old.
Great discussion, and a good reminder that we need to have grace with our pastors, as they have the difficult job of developing unity in an increasingly diverse and tribal society. It is a fine line between proclaiming truth, and being devisive. I think the position often taken is silence on these difficult subjects, but I see my pastor bringing up using the historical and cultural elements when looking at Bibical interpretation rather than a literal 21 st century view , leading people to draw their own conclusions using more appropriate hermeneutics.
James, thanks and that’s great. BTW, I’d appreciate everyone’s prayers as I’ suggested essentially the same answer to my own pastor. That was in response to his question to me whether I think it is “possible to have an evangelical church that is pro-creation and pro-science without being anti-evolution”. Not everyone needs to be in the science/faith discussion but we should all have some deeper teaching on theology and hermeneutics, especially, as you say, “using the historical and cultural elements when looking at Biblical interpretation”. We’ll be meeting in the next month to discuss that question.
I was just recommending this book to @Rosie on another forum, so it’s on my brain: Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology. This is a great little book for bringing up a lot of important questions for hermeneutics in a post-modern culture. The difference in approaches between Walter Kaiser’s “principalizing” approach (which is a super familiar evangelical approach to Scripture) and Webb’s redemptive model and VanHoozer’s theo-drama model make it clearer how people talk past each other in these discussions because their approach to Scripture is so different. Mark Strauss and Christopher Wright also have interesting chapters reflecting on the four main contributors’ essays.
Profs at strict, conservative Christian schools have to be very careful about expressing their views. Bill Dembski, formerly of the Discovery Institute, once said that he took Genesis figuratively. Then he got a position at a Baptist seminary and had to recant. When he left that job, he felt much more free and returned to his prior views. So it can be difficult to find out what these people really think.
While my first reaction is that it places those profs in impossible positions where they have to be dishonest, I think there are a lot of different interpretations of scripture that I can live with without it affecting my faith or central beliefs, so perhaps it is not all so hypocritical.
Sort of similar to how evangelical Christianity tends to force youth pastors and to some extent everyone in the position of telling a story about how they sinned and were awful prior to accepting Christ. Not very impressive to to tell the youth group about how you were raised in a Christian home, and grew into a knowledge of Christ over time without going through the drug and debaucheries of rebellion.