Huh? Interpretations don’t “become concordist” because of their conclusions. Approaches to Scripture are concordist in their presuppositions and motivations.
When you co-opt aspects of genealogical science to prop up literal interpretations of Scripture, some people are going to see that as the definition of concordism.
And for like the fortieth time, saying an interpretation is “concordist” (in the soft sense you quote) is not an insult or an accusation. Lots of Christians approach Scripture that way. It is not the preferred approach of many Bible scholars associated to varying degrees with BioLogos. I agree with McKnight that trying to read the scientific natural history of the evolution of humans into Genesis is concordist. McKnight is not reading literal scientific natural history into the text. In what way is seeing the text as a literary recreation of a nation’s history inherently concordist? “Easing tension with evolution” isn’t concordism.
Once again, George, the point is not to con creationists into accepting evolution by offering them palatable “solutions.” The point is, in Evangelical-speak, to “correctly handle the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15 for all the non-AWANA kids). You could see Adam as the story of Israel and still think Genesis 1 teaches a young earth.