Yesterday, one of my blog posts from the past two weeks was used as a guest post on Scot McKnight’s site, the Jesus Creed. It was generally well received by those that focused on the main point/thought question of the post and was tweeted or favorited by several others including eChurch Websites (Stuart) and BioLogos. However, there were a few commenters who took severe offense to one sentence that I included. (There were others that completely misread what I wrote, but I don’t really think that there is a reason to address those comments since they’ll probably misunderstand my reply here as well.) I wrote briefly about my initial reactions to the comments yesterday (https://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/my-fun-day-at-the-jesus-creed/), and you can read the actual post either on my site (https://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/giberson-vs-mohler-and-the-issue-of-public-persona/) or the Jesus Creed site (http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2010/09/10/but-do-they-sometimes-doubt/). The only difference between the two is the large disparity in number and variety of comments.
As mentioned in my reflections from yesterday, the post was about personal belief and public persona. I asked a question about whether it was possible that highly popular individuals who espouse extreme viewpoints on theology or belief in God (or lack thereof) ever have personal doubts about these strong viewpoints. I also mentioned that we would probably never know since the persona that they and their followers had built up would likely suffer if they ever acknowleged those doubts or even hinted at the validity of an alternative viewpoint.
To highlight this, I used two recent stories about specific individuals: PZ Myers (whom no one even cared about for some reason) and Al Mohler (who was recently engaged in a verbal spat with BioLogos, Karl Giberson in particular). The issue at hand was not the main point of the post (it doesn’t ever seem to be, does it?), but one sentence that I wrote following a quote from Dr. Mohler, who for those that do not know is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the “flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)”, which 100% absolutely has bearing on who was complaining and why.
Here is the paragraph containing the quote from Dr. Mohler and my apparently offensive and misleading following sentence:
Albert Mohler, on the other hand, believes that “the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures.” He, in essence, is saying that it is impossible to believe in evolution and be a Christian. This will likely offend the many millions worldwide who are Christian and accept the findings of science. So be it, I suppose.
Again, this was not the main point of the post. But, in it, I was most certainly pointing out that I believe he is wrong. I stand by the comment and my post in general, but in retrospect, the select group of commenters who disliked this paragraph would have likely been less offended if I had added a clause and edited a couple of words to change the sentence to:
To outsiders, it appears that he , in essence, is saying that it is impossible to believe in evolution and be a Christian.
I really think that would have been enough. But, I didn’t do it and so a small firestorm erupted. To those commenters that were offended (who as far as I can tell it were all Evangelical at most likely SBC members), they said that I was misrepresenting Mohler and that incompatible does not equal impossible. Well, even though I have a history with the SBC and the arrogance and frankness that some of its members exhibit in matters of the Gospel and who is “saved”, that doesn’t mean that the SBC or Evangelicals are wrong. Therefore, I asked the commenters who were offended or believed that I severely misrepresented Mohler’s words to explain the difference between incompatible and impossible, as it relates to evolution and the Gospel. Clearly I don’t see the difference, but they do and I sincerely wanted to understand where they were coming from. I posed a few questions: Does this mean that one who accepts the Gospel should eventually stop believing evolution is true? Are those Christians who believe in evolution “sub-Christians”? Another question that came to my mind later but was not posted was: Is it therefore impossible to grow and mature as a Christian if one is an evolutionist?
Unfortunately, no one directly addressed my above questions. There were a few attempts, but they weren’t reasons why there is a distinction; they simply restated that incompatible and impossible are not the same.
What was suggested though (by someone who was not offended by my post, ironically), was that perhaps to these commenters, being a Christian is equated with being “saved, or having your sins forgiven, while the Gospel of Jesus Christ is equated with “growing and becoming a more faithful follower of Christ.” Therefore, one can be saved and live incompatibly with the Gospel at the same time. To be frank, that’s arrogant, offensive, ludicous, and just plain ridiculous. You’re telling me that the millions who believe in evolution and accept Christ are not living a “compatible” life?
My history in the SBC leads me to think that this may be the distinction as I remember how we (hey, I was a member), without actually calling it this, believed that there were different “classes” of Christians and we Southern Baptists were the ones that had it figured out the best. Sure, we were inclusive and others could, or perhaps should, join us but our track was THE right one. What this means to those that believe in evolution and are saved, it would appear, is that we’re (hey, now I’m a member) all living without a coherent worldview and just rambling about aimlessly, but thanks be to God that he saved us that day back in 1995! I just don’t see the difference practically between the two terms if that’s the distinction, because how can one live as a Christian and not pursue what this means intellectually and holistically?
Perhaps what is meant by the difference between incompatible and impossible is that I’m limiting God and that you can be saved outside of the Gospel? So, yeah, while the Gospel is incompatible with evolution, well some evolutionist somewhere could accept that he is a sinner and ask for forgiveness outside of the Gospel. I thought that was a no-no as well as Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father but through Him? I don’t think this is the distinction, but as I mentioned, no one really answered my questions.
Or perhaps it’s more a matter of semantics? I wouldn’t think that Christians, especially those that are members of the SBC, would want to be seen publicly as directly coming out and saying that someone else is not a Christian. Well, even though they may not be trying they often say it indirectly. I see this as a member of the body of Christ who is an evolutionist. Imagine how an atheist or agnostic would see it…
These are my thoughts on what others might think. It is possible that I am quite wrong. It is also possible that my readers will not have any suggestions either. But I’m going to ask you anyway. Do you see a distinction between incompatible and impossible as it relates to evolution and the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
A biologist's view of science & theology 
You are fighting a good fight. Most theologians engaging science and religion will not make time for such debates with those who seem so uninterested. Stay the course. It matters.
LikeLike
After being at a SBC for much of my life, I would say, no – there is not much of a difference between incompatible and impossible for them, in general, based on my own past experience. I made a comment on that post, but it got lost in the shuffle with all the bickering back and forth about semantics. Same thing happens at the Biologos site.
LikeLike
Benjamin, thanks. I really do want to know why people believe the things they do. If I am or was wrong, I’ll admit it. I don’t think that I was though. I noticed your email… what are you studying specifically?
Like a Child, there was a lot of bickering over there! I remember you mentioning something about wondering if Giberson has his doubts, as well. Good question. I was just focused on the ones that seem SO adamant, but his persona is important too. I get so frustrated over there sometimes (not as much as on other sites, believe it or not) because people miss the point and yell about this one sentence stuff. It’s really turned me off, and I’m not really sure that discussion can occur in any medium between sides that are so far apart. That will probably never happen on this blog since I doubt it will ever get that many readers. But I hunger for discussion that is more than me just reading a book.
LikeLike
Sometimes I feel like posting on the bigger blogs something to the effect of – Be nice and STOP with all the arguing because you are pushing me away from Christianity. I think Jesus Creed and Biologos should have some sort of limit on how many times one individual can comment for each post, so I don’t see 20 posts by one person….when I see this, I just ignore all the comments entirely.
LikeLike
I feel for you since I’m aware of your struggles and journey. Do you get anything positive out of reading the comments? Is it possible for you to just read the post and skip the comments? That’s what I do for the most part, now, and it helps. But at the end of the day I’m leaning towards thinking all the time spent reading blogs and posting comments would be better served by going out and feeding the hungry or serving in some other capacity. There is a lot of God’s truth and personal faith to be found in doing that, I think.
LikeLike
I actually haven’t read too many blog posts on Jesus Creed or Biologos lately, and rarely do I view the comments (but since it was your post I decided to check it out).
On a related note, you might check out this post and the comments…here’s an excerpt of a comment by dr. cargill:
let me explain. there is an old saying: ‘those who know don’t speak. those who speak don’t know.’ i’m not sure if that’s completely true (especially as a teacher ;-), but i do like what the adage is attempting to express. it seems that those who know the least shout the loudest. however, those who actually give true thought and contemplation to matters as complex as god and faith usually reserve their judgment, or at least don’t make claims of absolute certainty, rather, they spend most of their time listening and thinking.
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/omeoflittlefaith/2010/09/robert-cargill-skeptic-sanctuary.html#ixzz0zI4PxmRT
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out…
Now that I think about it, I think it would be great if you posted the “STOP” sentence that you mentioned above, at least once. I would love to see the reaction. What do you think would happen? I’m a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy so I’m thinking that there would be an immediate effect but unfortunately it would get back to “normal” fairly quickly.
LikeLike
You have to expect vigorous opinions to be expressed in a blog discussion, and you have to expect that they will fall everywhere on each spectrum such as logic, open-mindedness, politeness, humor, and factual basis. After all, it’s a dialog open in principle to just about anyone on the planet and in practice not always skewed toward the most thoughtful and informed people (who might more likely be reading a book while others post!). Why not just try a little gentle confrontation or correction if needed, then ignore people whose posts don’t contribute to the conversation? I don’t think we need to say STOP … the controversies will not be resolved just by closing the conversation.
It seems to me that the incompatible-impossible question was addressed by some people who pointed out that “incompatible with Scripture” simply means that a position is in opposition to a scriptural teaching. One can still be a Christian while holding to a belief that is opposed to a biblical truth; the consequences of that would depend on the importance of the erroneous belief and the degree to which we allow ourselves to learn fresh truths.
On the other hand, saying that something is “incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ” does seem to be going a step further, and at least could sound like one is suggesting that a person cannot be a spiritual Christian while believing or teaching such a thing.
LikeLike
Mike,
I didn’t have any issue with the incompatible with a Scriptural teaching, although that’s such an arrogant thing for Mohler to say also. My view is right, etc. Where I took greatest umbrage was the incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If memory serves me correctly, that one sentence was why I decided to include Mohler in that blog post, which was originally only going to be about PZ Myers. What a difference that would have made, huh?
Your suggestions about how to respond in those types of blog discussions are helpful to me and jive well with what Scot and RJS shared with me on Friday too. But for Like a Child, it’s not quite the same. (Like a Child, if you’re reading this, correct me if I’m wrong). To her, it’s more than simply how to respond to people who either don’t get it, misrepresent someone’s words, or who are adamant about their particular version of a specific detail. Based on my previous conversations with her, she really needs right now to see Christianity not just in the ideas or apologetics or in how to combat with doubts, but also in the deeds of others. And interaction via blogs makes it seem that most Christians aren’t really Christ-like in their treatment of others. There are examples out there (T and Doperdeck come to mind on the Jesus Creed blog), but they’re usually in the minority. Do we tell her to simply stay away from blogs? Is she the only one like this out there?
LikeLike
Justin,
Yes, part of the problem for me is the lack of evidence of Christ in the comment section. But the bigger issue is that while others are just concerned with debating the extremes, I’m just trying to fit the pieces together, find a way to retain some element of Christian faith, and move on with my life. But at the “big” blogs, my questions are often either ignored or lost in the shuffle. And you’d think, if Christians were really true to their belief system, they would care about the fact that I am loosing my faith while Christians are battling YEC v Evolution v errancy etc. I am thankful that I have the support of the “nice” people on my own blog, for if I was doing research solely on the big blogs like Jesus Creed or Biologos, I probably would have given up by now, and if anything, the level of discussion on these blogs is probably converting some to become angry atheists.
LikeLike
Justin,
I am at Claremont Graduate University, currently writing my dissertation with Philip Clayton as my advisor. I am more invested in traditional academic disputes and want to see the religious pluralism conversation incorporated into the science and religion dialogue, but you probably know that Dr. Clayton is currently very concerned about how progressive views can gain public acceptance.
To answer your question about my field more directly: I have worked in an astronomy lab, am currently a lead researcher in a neuroscience experiment, and have literacy in all science journals. Based on this work, I am arguing what a good understanding of philosophy of science can do to critique current work in science and religion in order to not only bring forth the admission that religion must change in a changing world (everyone agrees to this now) but reflect upon the starting position that must be up to accepting such change. My position is meant to be an arbiter between classical theism, process theism as well as process non-theism, and ground of being theologies. The American Pragmatists are my chief resource.
LikeLike
Like a Child,
I just spent a few minutes reading over your blog and the comments and didn’t realize where you were “at”. I’m really sorry because I feel like my encouragement to you to read Polkinghorne has backfired, so to speak. I find great strength for my faith in his works, as I realize that even with all of the junk, there are reasons to believe and perhaps, just as importantly, someone who has walked before me and worked these things through in his head. I’m not trying to judge and say that the effect has been bad or negative, it’s just not been the one I would have expected so in that sense, it’s hard to see it as good advice.
Having read through some of your posts, I realize you don’t need any advice. And it seems like mine is not very good anyway! But, I just feel like if I was sitting in front of you I would ask if it was possible for you to just put all of the books down until next year. Can you stop reading? Can you stop seeking and just “be”? I feel like the ideas of God are to be found in books, for sure, but the presence of Him is so much more found in the loving and serving of others, especially those kids that you so obviously adore.
LikeLike
Like a Child,
I should have ended that with “the most profound” presence of Him. Those pinnacle moments or “thin spaces” as others describe them.
LikeLike
Actually, several people had recommended Polkinghorne that I recall, and I lost track of who recommended what, so don’t worry about the recommendation;). I have a list of books that is ever-expanding. I think the one thing to remember with my blog and something I should probably point out would be that I’m on a journey, so what I say now might change. But particularly with my last posts and the way I am feeling at present, it is hard to remain optimistic. I think part of the problem with Polkinghorne is that I was not well-versed with the theological terms, and I was reading it in little chunks of time (being interrupted constantly). I think it would have been easier to read had I been a student with more “free-time”, or more knowledgeable about theology and Scriptural inconsistencies.
So please don’t worry about apologizing for Polkinghorne. I often wonder what is my “problem”…why is it so terribly hard for me to have faith. Why am I so skeptical. I haven’t always been this way. I managed to get a PhD without having a faith crisis. Why now?
With regards to the books, I know, I would love to just stop. But at this point, if I just stop, I feel like I’m giving up. So I’m not really sure how to take a break and still be a Christian, if that makes sense. I have tried to turn down the intensity though.
LikeLike
Like a Child,
I, too, have been over to your blog and I am amazed by the degree of thought and effort you are putting into your journey. You’re getting tons of advice in the comments and I hesitate to add any of my own, but if I read you right, you are still interested in input, so here are some thoughts.
Regarding the whole blog thing, I think that blogs on YEC vs. evolution and so on are not a good source to get any kind of sense about “real” Christianity. They are highly specialized and highly charged. I am a missionary doctor, I have many Christian friends all over the spectrum, and I don’t know of any of them who are very interested in the debate. Yes, it’s an important part of developing the intellectual foundations of the faith, but it’s not a place to see the Gospel lived out in a personal way.
Second (and I know you have heard this a lot already), many of us have struggled with periods of doubt and unbelief. Some, of course, never return to faith, but many do. I myself have had times like that. Some of my doubt has been intellectual — miracles, creation (when I thought YEC was necessary), contradictions in Scripture, the problem of evil, etc. — but I have also learned that my deepest periods of doubt are often the result of depression rather than the cause of it. It is at least worth considering whether you are experiencing some degree of depression, which classically is associated not only with feeling sad but also actual cognitive effects like despairing and hopeless thoughts. Maybe nothing to do with you, but, as I say, a consideration.
To the extent that your doubts are strictly intellectual and related to the Resurrection, I do not think you can do better than N. T. Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It sounds as if you’ve already looked at that but are understandably doubtful of the worth of reading such a long volume. It is not that everyone with doubts should have to read 740 pages, but that someone in your situation (scientist, interested in pursuing the hard facts, able to handle complexity, and already having read a lot) is likely to relate to the book. Nor is it necessary to read every page to get the importance of most of the arguments, since much of the bulk is composed of details and references.
A super-condensed version of the flow of argument is that (a) bodily resurrection was not a part of the beliefs of any ancient culture, including the Greek and Jewish cultures around the 1st century AD, so Jesus’ resurrection was not just an extension of cultural beliefs (b) the earliest indications we have of Christian beliefs (mid 1st century) indicate that they did believe in a bodily resurrection and not some other spiritual or symbolic phenomenon (c) the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection are plausible accounts if Jesus rose; that is they are not inconsistent on literary or historical grounds (d) there is no better explanation than the resurrection to account for all the historical facts.
Of course, (d) depends on your a priori assumptions. As you probably fully understand from reading C. S. Lewis Miracles or other source (Wright?), neither science nor experience can tell us the a priori likelihood of miracles. Naturally, if one believes that miracles are not possible, then neither is the Resurrection, but reason itself cannot exclude miracles.
Finally, a couple of book suggestions that are totally different and experiential rather than intellectual. So the Woman Went Her Way by Lynne Bundesen is a well-written account of a woman’s spiritual journey, unconventional, interesting because she is a traveling journalist, and without a traditional evangelical ending. The journals of Laurel Lee, beginning with Walking Through the Fire, are beautiful and enchanting. Laurel was a young mother who learned during her nth pregnancy that she had Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She wrote Walking Through the Fire as a personal “hospital journal” during that time. It’s quite fresh, unconventional, and easy to read. (Laurel was a flower-child during the 60’s and though she eventually became a Christian believer, she always retained an un-churchy freshness and independence that is very refreshing to read.)
LikeLike
Very well, Justin, I’ll take you up on your offer. Although I feel that we are talking past each other. So let’s give it a shot:
1) Here’s what I heard you saying. “Mohler believes that anyone who thinks evolution is allowable for a Christian to believe is anti-Gospel and therefore not a Christian.” Correct me if I’m wrong.
2) I countered not with an analysis of his speech, but with the concrete example of his working with such groups as Together for the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition. These groups include men who do think that certain forms of biological evolution are indeed compatible with the Christian faith. An example of whom is Tim Keller. I then inferred that because of his actions, he must not have meant what you thought he did.
I think your proposed correction would have made things a lot better.
I was also offended by your assumption that Mohler (and, yes, P.Z. Myers too) is too morally weak to change his mind publicly, even if he privately did.
LikeLike
Everyone is always talking past each other and when it’s on the Jesus Creed blog, it’s like you’re on a subway with all of the conversations occurring at once. It happens…
1) “I heard you saying”… thanks for clarifying this. I wasn’t saying that but it’s what you heard. That’s huge. What I said was that he is saying it’s not possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution. I meant from a personal point of view, meaning that since I believe in evolution, I cannot be a Christian.
2) I just don’t think that matters because of my recent comment on cooperation in the Weekly Meanderings. Also, that seems to me to be a back-handed way of saying “no he’s not saying what you think” because he’s doing X. It would just be better if Mohler didn’t say the thing in the first place.
I didn’t mean to say that the only reason Mohler wouldn’t speak of if he changed his views would be because he is morally weak, but that the public persona that he AND his followers have built up would make it VERY difficult for him to do so. It is not all on him, but also on his following as well.
Thanks for stopping by. This is a much better way of conversing. I also want to encourage you that my story was one of being a young-earth creationist and Southern Baptist before I got to reading on evolution. I believe the evidence is overwhelming and I see scientists that have worked alongside me “bearing the fruits” of their Christianity while also supporting evolution. It would have been much easier for me personally, intellectually, and a bunch of other ‘lly’s if I had not looked into the evidence but I couldn’t. My job forced me to. And I think the evidence for evolution, just like the evidence for the existence of Christ, his death, and resurrection are equally good. Thus the “theistic” evolutionist’s dilemma…
LikeLike
Justin,
Ok; thanks for clarifying. But I don’t think that Mohler was saying “If you believe in evolution you’re not a Christian.” He cooperates with Keller, who does believe in evolution.
I don’t think I was being backhanded when I cited his actions, I was bringing up a genuine issue. You are inferring Mohler’s broader attitude from one speech he made, not from his actions. I think that it is better to look at someone’s actions than their words, given how easily misunderstood words can be.
He’s pugnacious, but so are people on your side. Didn’t Rachel Held Evans state that he is driving people away from the faith? Isn’t that a pretty serious statement, given Christ’s own words that it is better for a person to be cast into a lake with a millstone around their necks than to cause one of these little ones to sin?
Thanks for telling me a bit of your story. Now I’ll tell you some of my own story. I was never a young-earth creationist, nor a Southern Baptist. And I’m still not. In fact, the one who has most affected my understanding of how to read Genesis is Bruce Waltke (Have you heard of Waltke?). My father studied under him, and Waltke helped me himself quite a lot when I was in (secular) university studying the Bible from a secular perspective. I also read Keller’s article on Biologos, and liked it.
I agree with you that evolution is powerfully supported by the evidence, and I also agree that the important truths of the faith are well supported, not least by divine revelation. We need to reconcile them…without dropping any of them.
So in the end, I don’t in fact agree with Mohler’s point (that I think he’s making) that evolution poses insoluble difficulties for the Christian faith. But I do not think he’s saying that because I believe evolution is true, I am therefore not a Christian.
LikeLike