So I just read Dr. Lamoureux’s latest book “Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes.” I liked the last book I read of his but was curious how his views might have “evolved” from 2008 to 2016. While much of the content is recycled from “Evolutionary Creation,” he expands on several sections and his style is less polemical. I confess that I was a bit taken aback by his style at times in “Evolutionary Creation,” but that is partly because it was also the first time I was really confronted by things like the ancient science in the Bible. My impression is that the added years of experience teaching students and anticipating their difficulties has softened his earlier, more dogmatic style to a more refined, pastoral one. This matters to me as I consider books I would be willing to give to curious family members and friends. About my only criticism is the book’s title. It gives the impression he is going to argue for evolution using a concordist approach from scripture which is obviously not the case as he is “Dr. anti-scientific concordism.”
Overall, I loved this book and will continue to look out for his future works. I recommend it highly to anyone interested in EC.
I agree @DOL that this was a good book and easier to read than some. However, I agree that this wasn’t really an argument from Scripture–rather than to say that Scripture isn’t against evolution, because that wasn’t its intent originally. I have 2 copies and plan on giving one to someone after much prayer!
I broached the topic with my pastor and SS leader this last week, about talking about it in SS. They were a bit tentative, saying “why would you want to bring this up?”
I explained that I was worried about how students perceive science in college and HS, and that it’s helpful to have an awareness of the different ways brilliant Christians understand the origins debate–that it’s not just one way of looking at things. I said I don’t think we need to convince anyone of one of the points of view–just that there are other ways of looking at this.
At this point, my pastor is very open to talking about this–but not to EC–just old earth. However, it will be more of a method to keep things available for discussion than anything else.
I fully agree. I’m not evangelistic about EC but do feel that Christians need to understand that you can be a follower of Christ and affirm evolution. For those interested, it’s worth showing them the scientific evidence in ways they can understand. My kids love science and think it’s strange that many people think dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. We watch nature documentaries together and they can tell you when dinosaurs became extinct. A few of my physician colleagues who are Christians would be off by about 65 million years.
Thanks for the review. I had seen the review in the ASA journal, and was interested. I’ll be ordering a copy. I do agree that the title is unfortunate, being a little in your face and click bait like, but suspect his publisher chose it. A more neutral title would be easier to discuss with sensitive audiences.
Randy, let us know how it goes. I have come to realize how hard a pastor’s job is, and how hurtful people can be when difficult subjects are breached. I think the old earth approach is a good one, as I suspect many who click the box on young earth have grave doubts about it, but fear discussing those doubts openly. I would still tread lightly. I think a book club independent of church would be ideal, but I know I do not have the time or energy to put one together at this time.
Thanks. @jasonbourne4 and @jpm, I want to be clear that my pastor has been very kind and compassionate on that. I retracted my earlier message to him and my SS leader, saying that I thought it would be too difficult to discuss in SS as it may lead to debates. I thought my pastor was very understanding to be willing to talk about this with me. I’m grateful for their understanding.
This can be a touchy subject to be dealt with delicately. This is why I’m staying anonymous for now on the forum. After I read Walton’s book on Old Testament Theology, my pastor suggested reading also Waltke’s OT Theology. After a couple chapters on Genesis, I was pleasantly surprised to see he thinks EC makes the most sense. This may be my inroad to bringing up the issue with my pastor in the coming months.
That is good to have an understanding pastor. Often time they understand the dynamics of the church much better than we do. By the way, just to clarify, I was referring to how often fundamentalist types react in hurtful ways, not that you would be hurtful. I reread my post and saw how ambiguous my wording was. Sorry.
Thank you! You had a good pastoral attitude, too. No, I didn’t get that impression at all. It’s easy to react irritably when one is afraid, and it certainly would have been my fault if I’d brought that up in SS in that way and someone reacted that way (even though our church is usually quite understanding and compassionate). I was very impressed that my pastor was willing to even discuss this, and consider an old earth point of view.
It is disheartening to see how just opening up to the discussion can result in career disasters. Of course, we never know all the factors involved but we do know that leadership in institutions is motivated more by politics and donations than reason.
I don’t want to go off on a tangent too much, but some groups require belief in eternal conscious torment (eg, Trinity Western and ABWE). However, Paul wrote not to condemn the one whose faith is weak in Romans 14:1 (thus, unnecessarily exclusive); that’s a good lesson for me. It sounds like Waltke left so as to avoid offending his coworkers.
I recently finished reading Lamoureux’s book as well (and also finished his online course just before Christmas as well as recently heard him speak in person as well). I’d suggest that his arguments are essentially Scriptural arguments and that is why I found them so compelling (along with John Walton’s work). If Lamoureux would have come along and said - “Well, the science says this so that’s that.” I’d have not had much time for him. But that’s not what he does. He shows very clearly from a hermeneutical, isagogical, and exegetical approach that the fundamentalist reading of Genesis is not the only reading…and is likely rather unfaithful to the text. Though it rattled my cage a bit, and caused me some serious re-evaluation, I think fundamentally he’s correct. I’m not convinced by all his conclusions, and in some cases I don’t see why some of his conclusions necessarily follow from what he has proposed…but in general I find his work extremely helpful.
I’m also similarly fond of John Walton’s work. Though Lamoureux and Walton don’t come out at the same positions (as I gather) both have been helpful as I continue to wrestle with the Word of God.
I agree! I don’t know anyone else who has the depth and breadth of experience–theology PhD and evolutionary biology PhD, with ongoing publishing of papers. I had his course and read his book, too–both were very helpful to me. denis o lamoureux - Search Results - PubMed
