Is Evolution vs. Creation a Discussion of Essentials?

It may not be clear why a blog called “Essentials” has focused exclusively thus far on the issue of evolution and the Bible. Does this mean I think this is an essential matter. Not at all. In fact, I discussed this issue because it is a good example of an matter about which Christians should be able to disagree without animosity. As already explained I think there are some very real negative consequences to the cause of Christ when we aggressively push an ultraliteralist version of creation that ignores or proposes nearly untenable reconciliation the different creation accounts in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. Therefore, I am not neutral on this issue. However, I believe that those who disagree with me on this have a motivation that I share: the desire to be true to God’s word and hold it as the primary authority in all matters. Post-modern relativism is a real threat. However, in my opinion the Bible can legitimately be interpreted in a way that is not inconsistent with a limited version of evolution. Having decided that this is a valid interpretation based only on the biblical text itself, it is very interesting that this puts us in a position to speak to modern people, who know the evidence in favor of at least some form of evolution. These are the very people who need to be reached and confronted with the emptiness and futility of a materialist philosophy. However, I do not dislike and I would not refuse to work with individuals who disagree. In fact, my pastor invited a person from “Answers in Genesis” to speak at our church, and I did not object. I expressed that I have reservations about their views, but I agree with their motives. However, it is my impression that there is no reciprocity in this regard. The Answers in Genesis web site uses a quote from Marx to describe Christians who “compromise” by accepting some version of evolution as a reasonable scientific theory. These people are referred to as “useful idiots”. In this case, useful means useful to atheists and anti-religious people in generally. Of course, the meaning of idiot is obvious, but it is not clear to me that it is a term that one Christian should use to describe another. I would characterize it in a similar category as the word “fool”, which we are expressly forbidden from using. If they could conclusively refute my interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 and I persisted in espousing that view, perhaps the term would be justified. However, that is not the case. It is possible, with equal reverence for the Bible and an equal belief in interpreting it literally unless there are clear indications to the contrary (which there are in Genesis 1 and 2), to come to different conclusions about the meaning of Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis.

This is representative of a larger issue, which I believe is one of the most serious threats to traditional or conservative Christianity today. It is the tendency to exclude and even ridicule persons who disagree with us about non-essential matters of faith. Taken to its logical conclusion this would cause Christians to continue to fragment and not to cooperate in that which is to be our primary concern (spreading and living the gospel of Christ). This is happening now in the Southern Baptist Convention. There are some who are voicing objections to this trend, but I fear power politics will prevail and those who are most willing to use secular political methods will prevail. This group is not likely to be the one that favors cooperation. The apostle Paul addressed a variety of doctrinal issues and behaviors in churches, but I believe the only people he advised Christians to withdraw from are those who were unrepentant sinners who would damage the reputation of the church in the community or those who were preaching or teaching overt blasphemy. On other issues Paul offered correction, but not withdrawal of fellowship or failure to cooperate. There is a tension between this New Testament principle and the real threat of doctrinal drift or dilution due to cultural influences. Different denominations and even different bodies of believers within denominations come to different conclusions on how to handle this matter. This is probably best, but I would hope that we would be as cautious to avoid unnecessary fragmentation and exclusion as we seem to be to avoid a loss of doctrinal integrity. I think we would all agree that no one is saved by virtue of their correct understanding of doctrine. The only doctrine one has to understand correctly to be saved is the gospel repentance and rebirth, accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, publicly announcing this decision. Other things may be important, but they are not as important as this one message. Paul advised going as far as acting to make those in a different position in life comfortable in order to reach them for Christ.