Mohler & Keller on Evolution
 |
| English: Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Dr. Mohler has made it clear that evolution is not simply wrong but has gone so far as to describe it as a myth which is 'not only incompatible with any historical affirmation of Genesis, but ... also with the claim that all humanity is descended from Adam and the claim that in Adam all humanity fell into sin and guilt.'
He has also stated that '[t]he Bible's account of the Fall and its consequences is utterly incompatible with evolutionary theory. The third chapter of Genesis is as problematic for evolutionary theory as the first two.' In other words, he thinks that evolution excludes the biblical view of an historical Adam and therefore of original sin. In short, consistent affirmation of evolution ultimately requires denial of the gospel. You can read the whole statement here. I appreciate Dr. Mohler's forthright candour on this issue. And I find his argument on the significance of evolution for orthodox conceptions of the gospel to be persuasive, compelling and timely.
Dr. Tim Keller, one of the two most senior TGC leaders, also sees the church's attitude to evolution as a watershed issue for the gospel. Unlike Dr. Mohler, however, he has made it clear over the last few years that he is not only committed to some form of theistic evolution (though maintaining an historical Adam, reconstructed in light of evolutionary theory) but also regards the church's failure to take evolution on board as potentially catastrophic. His comments to this effect at a Biologos-sponsored colloquy were reported by Christianity Today here; and Mike Kruger offers an excellent response to that particular gathering here.
Dr. Mohler and Dr. Keller are thoughtful, gracious, intelligent and influential church leaders. Given their respective positions on evolution, the pressing question is: who is right? Is the church facing a crisis because too few of her people and leaders have learned how to combine the Bible and evolution? Or is she facing a crisis because too few of her leaders are prepared to take a stand for the Bible over against evolution? Or, despite the claims of Dr. Mohler and Dr. Keller, does it actually not matter that much at all?
I believe the account of the special creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis and its application by Paul in passages such as 1 Tim. 2:12-14.
I am puzzled as to how one can affirm any evolutionary account of Adam and Eve's origins and yet be complementarian, let alone see it as a necessary gospel distinctive. So what exactly does an evolutionary-complementarian reading of that passage in Timothy look like? Or 1 Cor. 11?
DEFINITION
Complementarianism holds that "God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood, but different and complementary in function with male headship in the home and in the Church.
It is usually characterized by:
- A generally patriarchal view of the family (the father is responsible to lead, provide for, teach his children to know and love God) as found in Scripture.
- Belief that a Christian husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church
- Belief that a Christian wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ
- Belief that God designed marriage to reflect the relationship of Jesus Christ and the Church
- Belief that only men should be appointed into authoritative positions of leadership in the church
The Complementarian view of marriage maintains that gender-based roles and a husband-headship structure in marriage is biblically required. A husband is considered to have the God-given responsibility to provide for, protect, and lead "his" family, while a wife is to collaborate with her husband, respect him, and serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. Complementarians assert that the Bible instructs husbands to lovingly lead their families and to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, and instructs wives to respect their husbands’ leadership out of reverence for Christ.
Complementarianism, like creationism, pinches me in the current cultural climate; I would like to go with the cultural flow and be thought of by the great and the good as an enlightened and intelligent person rather than a bigoted moron; indeed, every fallen instinct in me wants to do so. Thus, I need a good foundation on which to stand if I am to maintain these positions with any perseverance and conviction in the face of my own selfish ambitions and the overwhelming tide of the wider world's beliefs. Evolution seems to provide no such safe place to stand. I do not think you can have both.
I am merely drawing attention to the fact that high profile members of these consortia have themselves publicly stated that it is a very big deal, indeed, the biggest deal facing the church at the moment; but they also seem to hold contradictory views on the matter. Let us hope that the TGC seminar makes all things clear.
