Vern S. Poythress on Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3

Vern S. Poythress, Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1–3 (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019).

No doubt due to someone’s generosity, a newish book by Vern Poythress on handling Genesis 1-3 has been made freely available in its entirety. Here’s the blurb:

‘Christians have long discussed and debated the first three chapters of the Bible. How we interpret this crucial section of Scripture has massive implications for how we understand the rest of God’s Word and even history itself. In this important volume, biblical scholar Vern Poythress combines careful exegesis with theological acumen to illuminate the significance of Genesis 1–3. In doing so, he demonstrates the sound interpretive principles that lead to true understanding of the biblical text, while also exploring complex topics such as the nature of time, the proper role of science, interpretive literalism, and more.’

The book is available here as a pdf.

Themelios 44, 3 (December 2019)

The latest Themelios is online here (and available here as a single pdf), containing the below articles.

Editorial

D.A. Carson

But That’s Just Your Interpretation!

Strange Times

Daniel Strange

Remembering a Principal’s Principles

Robert S. Smith

Cultural Marxism: Imaginary Conspiracy or Revolutionary Reality?

What are we to make of Cultural Marxism? This article seeks to answer that question, first, by outlining the key elements and legacy of classical Marxism; second, by exploring the neo-Marxism of Antonio Gramsci; third, by assessing the main ideas and impact of “the Frankfurt School”; and, fourth, by offering some reflections on (i) the links between these thinkers and various contemporary developments, (ii) the wisdom of employing the term Cultural Marxism, and (iii) how Christians should respond to the current “culture wars” that are polarizing the Western world.

Hans Madueme

Adam and Sin as the Bane of Evolution? A Review of Finding Ourselves After Darwin

The diverse essays in Stanley Rosenberg’s edited volume Finding Ourselves After Darwin: Conversations on the Image of God, Original Sin, and the Problem of Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018) offer a Christian analysis of the human person in light of evolutionary thinking. The recommendations to revise our understanding of original sin and theodicy raise particularly challenging questions. Traditional interpretations of Scripture, for instance, are often devalued in order to reduce tensions with our current scientific understanding. Additionally, the more radical arguments undercut doctrines that earlier Christians believed are pivotal to the biblical story. Overall, these noteworthy essays represent a wide range of creative possibilities for updating our theological anthropology in line with a post-Darwinian setting, but they are less convincing when justifying the theological cost for doing so.

William D. Mounce

Do Formal Equivalent Translations Reflect a Higher View of Plenary, Verbal Inspiration?

The article begins by establishing five categories of translation theory and argues that functional translations like the NIV do in fact reflect the meaning of every Greek word, but not in the same way as formal equivalent translations do. Therefore, formal equivalent translations cannot claim a higher view of inspiration.

Matthew Swale

Power for Prayer through the Psalms: Cassiodorus’s Interpretation of the Honey of Souls

Exegesis, prayer, and spiritual formation converge in the Psalms commentary written by Cassiodorus (490–584). Each psalm’s exegesis ends with a “conclusion” considering the implications for morality, doctrine, or prayer. This study focuses on how Cassiodorus’s exegesis of the Psalms provides power for prayer. First, Cassiodorus’s rich expositions of the Psalms of Ascent and Psalm 142 illustrate his approach to the Psalter as God’s provision of superior, life-changing words. Second, prayer flows from Cassiodorus’s handling of individual psalms in four ways: prayerful exegesis, prayer exemplars, prayer templates, and prayer as the means to psalmic formation.

Kenneth J. Stewart

The Oxford Movement and Evangelicalism: Initial Encounters

Commemorations of the birth of the Oxford Movement (later known as Anglo-Catholicism) have regularly intimated certain early commonalities with evangelicalism, especially within the Church of England. It was so at the 1933 centenary of the launch of the movement; such hypotheses have been given fresh life with the 2017 release of the Oxford Handbook of the Oxford Movement. This essay examines the basis for these suggestions and finds them wanting.

Kyle Beshears

Athens without a Statue to the Unknown God

Apatheism is indifference and apathy toward the existence of God. In our secular age, a person adopts apatheism when they feel a sense of existential security absent God, effectively dissolving their reason, motivation, and will to care about questions related to his existence. This indifference presents a stronger challenge for evangelism than does religious pluralism, agnosticism, and atheism. For this reason, evangelicals ought to explore ways of engaging apatheism.

Mark Boone

Inerrancy Is Not a Strong or Classical Foundationalism

The general idea of strong foundationalism is that knowledge is founded on well warranted beliefs that do not derive any warrant from other beliefs and that all our other beliefs depend on these foundational ones for their warrant. Although inerrancy posits Scripture as a solid foundation for theology, the idea that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy involves a strong foundationalist epistemology is deeply problematic. In fact, inerrancy does not require any particular view of the structure of knowledge, and notable sources on inerrancy tout it in ways inconsistent with most forms of strong foundationalism.

Daniel Wiley

The God Who Reveals: A Response to J.L. Schellenberg’s Hiddenness Argument

The challenge of divine hiddenness has become one of the greatest advocates for skepticism in modern philosophical debate. From this challenge, Schellenberg has developed the now acclaimed hiddenness argument. For Schellenberg, an all-loving God would be always open to personal relationships with finite creatures, and thus all nonbelief would derive from resistance to God. However, the existence of nonresistant nonbelievers, or those who have never resisted the idea of God, must prove that God does not exist, for surely an all-loving God would leave enough evidence of himself to convince finite creatures of his existence and prevent nonresistant nonbelief. In response, I argue that (1) openness to personal relationships and love are not as correlated as the hiddenness argument demands, (2) nonresistant nonbelief is not provable, and (3) Schellenberg fails to reason to God’s omni-benevolence apart from Scripture.

Book Reviews

Bulletin of Ecclesial Theology 6, 1 (2019)

The latest issue of the Bulletin of Ecclesial Theology is now available, this one exploring issues related to Christianity and science by addressing the question of ‘Theology after Darwin’. The volume carries the below essays (the brief summaries are taken from Matthew Mason’s editorial).

The issue is available from here via a painless sign-up link.

Gerald Hiestand

And Behold It Was Very Good: St. Irenaeus’ Doctrine of Creation

Gerald Hiestand [points] us to the rich resources of St Irenaeus of Lyon’s doctrine of creation to help the Church affirm the creaturely goodness of the material world.

Nathan Barczi

Barth, Mozart, and the Shadow-Side of Creation

Nathan Barczi draws creatively on Karl Barth and Jeremy Begbie’s reflections on the music of Mozart to ask how this might shed light on the problem of non-human suffering before the Fall.

Jeremy Mann

Learning from John Milbank’s Approach to Creation and Evolution

Jeremy Mann turns to a significant theological contemporary and draws lessons John Milbank’s approach to the doctrine of creation in relation to evolutionary theory, in order to help pastors avoid the pitfalls of talking foolishly about evolution.

J. Ryan Davidson

Nicaea and Chalcedon After Modern Christologies: Herman Bavinck as Exemplar in Engaging Christological Developments

Ryan Davidson examines aspects of Herman Bavinck’s Christology as they relate to the catholic creeds and Reformed confessions, and also to the Modern Christologies of his near-contemporaries.

Douglas Estes

Sin and the Cyborg: On the (Im)Peccabbility of the Posthuman

Douglas Estes turns our attention to the near-future and critiques transhumanist technological optimism by reminding us of the devastating effects of sin, and the impotence of technological solutions to address this fundamental human problem.

Zachary Wagner

Narratives in Dialogue: The Interplay between Evolutionary History and Christian Theology

Zachary Wagner [explores] ways in which the Christian gospel may be particularly well-equipped to speak into a worldview shaped by belief in evolution.

Book Reviews

Foundations 72 (Spring 2017)

Issue 72 of Foundations: An International Journal of Evangelical Theology, published by Affinity, is now available (here in its entirety as a pdf), with the following contributions, most of them on the theme of church planting.

Ralph Cunnington

Editorial

Neil Powell

The Nature and Necessity of Church-Planting Movements

This paper introduces church-planting movements and considers how they differ from both networks and institutions. It next addresses the nature of gospel partnership within such movements and the place theological vision plays in enabling and establishing a partnership. Further, the paper reflects on some of the challenges movements face, and how they may be overcome, including defining a biblical basis for such partnerships. Finally, it seeks to establish the claim that the development of church-planting movements is necessary to reach our cities and our nations for Christ. 

Philip Moore

Defending Specificity on Doctrinal Distinctives for a Church-Planting Network

Acts 29 is a church-planting network of over 630 churches from 18 different denominations in 30 countries. Acts 29, as well as subscribing to the Lausanne statement of faith, has five specific doctrinal distinctives which its members must accept whole-heartedly. Two of these are Reformed soteriology and complemantarian relationships for men and women in the home and in the church. This article argues for the legitimacy of a network setting distinctives like these as boundaries for the network, describes how Acts 29 lives them out in its different constituencies and finally shows how they relate to the church-planting mission of the network.

Neil MacMillan

Building a Church-Planting Movement in a Traditional Denomination

This article explores how we can have the best of both worlds. The dynamic growth of a church planting movement welded to the resources and depth of a traditional ecclesiastical setting. Because most European Christians belong to traditional denominations it is crucial that these institutions learn to embrace church-planting movement dynamics that can counter the decline of the church. The article begins with a definition and analysis of church-planting movements and contrasts these with the benefits of institutional environments. It is argued that movements and institutions cannot flourish without elements of the other and that it is possible to blend the best features of movement and institution in one organisation. This is followed by a case study of how the Free Church of Scotland has worked to foster a church-planting movement within its existing structures. I try to outline the processes necessary to allow this to happen and some of the challenges involved. The article concludes with a look to necessary future developments that might allow this movement to take root and mature. 

Andy Paterson

Multi-Site Church

Multi-site churches litter the American churchscape and are beginning to crop up on the British scene. This article examines what they are, how the multi-site movement arose and what biblical rationale there might be for their existence. Appeals have been made both to church history and to evangelistic success by their advocates whilst the critics major on the nature of church and its oversight. The paper investigates whether multi-site church is an end in itself, a dangerous distortion to be avoided or a pragmatic tool that might help structure a transitional phase for some church plants and mergers.

Stephen Lloyd

Chronological Creationism

This paper coins a new term, “Chronological Creationism” to describe a nuanced approach to the creation-evolution debate which is theologically, apologetically and scientifically appealing. The importance of the Bible’s chronology, both relative and absolute, is introduced and then chronological considerations are applied to a series of doctrinal issues relating to origins: Adam and humanity, Noah’s flood and the relationship between Adam’s sin and death. It is concluded that if the Bible’s relative chronology in these doctrinal areas is maintained then it is impossible to reconcile the absolute chronology of the Bible with the dating used in evolutionary history. While this presents a formidable challenge, it is only if the relative chronology of the Bible is maintained that we are able to provide coherent responses to many contemporary attacks on Christianity. Starting with the relative chronology of the Bible also allows us to develop a robust scientific approach to origins that is innovative and enriching.

Book Reviews

More from Centre for Public Christianity (October 2014)

Among other items of interest, The Centre for Public Christianity has posted a video interview with Paula Gooder looking at claims that the apostle Paul ‘was opposed to the body, and affirms Christianity’s endorsement of the physical aspects of creation’, and a video interview with Cambridge Professor Simon Conway Morris ‘about evolutionary convergence and why scientists struggle to eliminate pattern and purpose from their understanding of the natural world’.

Also posted is an audio conversation exploring the concept of the Sabbath and ‘what benefits this ancient practice of taking regular time to rest might have for modern people’.

Christian History Magazine on Charles Darwin

The latest issue of Christian History Magazine is devoted to ‘Debating Darwin’.

According to its blurb...

‘In the 19th century, Christians responded to the challenges of Darwinian evolution in many and diverse ways – from hostility to reconciliation. Read about the reactions of theologians, scientists, pastors, authors, bishops, and politicians – and learn how Darwinism eventually became a symbol of warfare between science and Christianity in this issue of Christian History magazine.’

The whole magazine is available as a 4.3 MB pdf here.

Various on the Historicity of Adam and Eve

There seems to be a fair bit of stuff floating around at the moment on the historicity, or otherwise, of Adam and Eve.

1. A new book by C. John Collins – Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? – published by Crossway in the United States (with an excerpt here) and by IVP in the UK. Collins writes:

‘My goal in this study is to show why I believe we should retain a version of the traditional view, in spite of any pressures to abandon it. I intend to argue that the traditional position on Adam and Eve, or some variation of it, does the best job of accounting not only for the Biblical materials but also for our everyday experience as human beings – an experience that includes sin as something that must be forgiven (by God and our fellow human beings) and that must be struggled against as defiling and disrupting a good human life’ (13).

2. An article by Tim Keller on the Gospel Coalition website – ‘Sinned in a Literal Adam, Raised in a Literal Christ’:

‘When Paul speaks of being “in” someone he means to be covenantally linked to them so their historical actions are credited to you. It is impossible to be “in” someone who doesn’t historically exist. If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument – that both sin and grace work “covenantally” – falls apart. You can’t say that Paul was a man of his time but accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.

3. In part picking up on the Collins book and the Keller article, Christianity Today has carried a few pieces on the topic, notably ‘The Search for the Historical Adam’ by Richard N. Ostling.

4. The latest issue of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology – 15, 1 (Spring 2011) – is devoted to the topic. In the editorial, Stephen J. Wellum writes:

‘We are seeking to stake a claim that to deny an historic Adam and fall and go the way of recent evangelicals is not only unnecessary, it is unbiblical in the strongest of terms. In the end, it will lead to a denial of other parts of Scripture, and ultimately it will undercut the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is why our wide-ranging essays and forum pieces are seeking, in some small way, to demonstrate that from Scripture, theology, science, and more, debating an historic Adam matters’ (3).

Nick Spencer on Darwin and God

Nick Spencer, Director of Studies at Theos, delivered the 2009 Charles Gore Lecture at Westminster Abbey on 24 November on ‘Darwin and God’. The lecture (available to read here) traces what we can know of Darwin’s religious biography.

2009 Gifford Lectures

I’ve just seen that the 2009 Gifford Lectures are available online.

They were delivered this year by Alister McGrath under the title of ‘A Fine-Tuned Universe: Science, Theology and the Quest for Meaning’.

The synopsis says that the lectures explore ‘the human quest for meaning in the universe, especially in the light of its apparent “fine-tuning” to permit the origination of life. Why do we long to make sense of things? Do we possess some kind of “homing instinct” for heaven?’

The individual lectures are available as pdfs here:

Lecture 1 – Introduction: Yearning to Make Sense of Things

Lecture 2 – Why We Still Need Natural Theology

Lecture 3 – The Mystery of the Constants of Nature

Lecture 4 – The Enigmas of Evolutionary Biology

Lecture 5 – Natural Theology and the Quest for Meaning

Lecture 6 – Conclusion: Clues to the Meaning of the Universe?

Mary Midgley on Charles Darwin

As part of their ‘Rescuing Darwin’ project, exploring ‘the extent and nature of evolutionary and non-evolutionary beliefs in the UK today and their perceived relationship with theism and atheism’, Theos, the public theology think tank, have published another booklet, this one being an extended interview with Mary Midgley, available for purchase in hard copy, and also online as a pdf.

Discussing Darwin: An Extended Interview with Mary Midgley (London: Theos, 2009).

It contains four main chapters:

• Chapter 1 – Contextualising Darwin
• Chapter 2 – Science and Darwin
• Chapter 3 – On Mammals and Morality
• Chapter 4 – Christianity and Darwin

Midgley discusses Darwin’s theory of evolution as it was received in its own time, as well as some of the issues surrounding it today.

Andy McIntosh on Rescuing Darwin

Andy McIntosh, Review of Denis Alexander and Nick Spencer, Rescuing Darwin: God and Evolution in Britain Today (London: Theos, 2009), in Evangelicals Now (July 2009).

Having mentioned this report in an earlier post, and then offered some reflections of my own on some of the issues in a subsequent post, I thought I would link to this more critical review (by Andy McIntosh) of the report on Darwin by Denis Alexander and Nick Spencer.

He makes five complaints:

1. He is unhappy with the title of the report – Rescuing Darwin – since although Darwin was no atheist, nor was he a friend to biblical Christianity.

2. He claims that the report is misleading in arguing that the straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1 was not held until relatively recently.

3. He argues that the theology of sin, suffering and death espoused in the report contradicts biblical teaching, especially Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

4. He complains that the authors do not seem to be aware of the large body of science which supports a creation/flood position.

5. He takes issue with the authors’ criticisms of Intelligent Design.

Rescuing Darwin

[A version of this article was first published in eg 22 (June 2009), a publication of the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity.]

My wife is adamant we first met outside the laundry at college, whereas I know it was outside the Italian restaurant on Green Lane. Of course, our disagreement on this point is friendly and poses no threat to our relationship; somewhat ironically, it’s even a source of celebration, since what really matters to both of us is that we met, not how we met. Likewise, where there are disagreements in the Christian family – over spiritual gifts, the end of the world, the nature of church leadership – it’s crucial to remember what unites us rather than stumble over matters of secondary importance.

2009 sees the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. The milestones have provoked considerable discussion in the press, books, and TV – with many pundits giving the impression that religion (and Christianity is usually in the line of sight) is either under threat or has already been made redundant. It has also provided an opportunity for Christians to engage with others on the topic, to reflect together on what’s at stake and what’s not at stake, and remind ourselves that we have too much invested in our relationship with each other, not to mention with our Creator God, to trip up on this dispute.

As part of a larger project on Darwin, Nick Spencer of Theos (a public theology think tank) and Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion have written a report – Rescuing Darwin: God and Evolution in Britain Today – in which they seek to argue that Darwinian evolution does not necessitate atheism, and that Christianity and evolution are compatible. In ‘rescuing’ Darwin from what they see as false charges, their report prompts reflection on four related areas.

The significance of Darwin
The report plots Darwin’s faith from before the Beagle expedition to the publication of Origin and beyond, and his struggles with suffering (not least personally, with the death of his eldest daughter). Although he had lost whatever Christian faith he had by the time he wrote Origin, and became an agnostic towards the end of his life, he rejected the view that evolution entails atheism. Moreover, the initial reception of his theory, though not without criticism, was generally positive, and was accepted even by leading Christian thinkers – scientists and theologians – who did not see it as a threat to faith.

Disciples of Darwin are not always faithful to him in this respect when they argue that evolution essentially equates with atheism; Darwin would not have agreed with them. When faced with the choice of ‘creation or evolution’, many Christians feel compelled to say ‘creation’, and don’t question whether they might have been subjected to a false antithesis of the ‘Who do you love – your husband or your son?’ sort.

Part of the problem is that Darwinism has been encountered wearing various philosophical, social or political outfits. Darwin himself has been hijacked for views in which humans are merely machines or collections of chemicals, accidents of a random process, subject to blind forces, with morality reduced to self-interest. It should come as no surprise that it’s not just Christians who have problems with this kind of ‘hard’ Darwinism propounded by Richard Dawkins and his ilk. According to the report, none of this reflects Darwin’s own position.

The interpretation of Scripture
The report includes a helpful section on Scripture, showing that many of the early church fathers exercised considerable flexibility in their reading of the opening chapters of Genesis, and that figurative readings have continued through church history. Even theologically conservative scholars embraced a range of opinions on the issue of evolution. B.B. Warfield (still highly esteemed and appealed to by supporters of biblical inerrancy) was happy to accept that God had guided the process, stating: ‘I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.’ Warfield’s high view of Scripture was not stymied by the possibility of evolution.

Faithfulness to Scripture requires reading it in appropriate ways. When biblical writers speak of the earth not moving (Psalm 93:1; 96:10; 104:5), we understand that has to do with God’s oversight rather than physical immovability. Interpretations of such references as evidence that the earth is at the centre of the universe, though sincerely and strongly held, were misinformed. That we now know this does not cast doubt on the authority of Scripture, but reminds us to be wise readers of it, open to correction by greater light.

We do less than justice to Genesis 1 if we make the category mistake of reading it as one thing rather than another. This may mean recognising it has been shaped as a piece of literature to show how God first forms the world (on days 1-3) and then fills the world (on days 4-6). Moreover, in its context, it engages with alternative worldviews to inculcate a particular view of God, the world, and the place of human beings in it. That it is not a scientific account of origins does not make it inferior or any less truthful. Again, none of this is to deny the inspiration of the account; it is to ask what kind of inspired account we are reading.

The nature of science
The rise of modern science was nursed in the arms of a Christian worldview. Although it has become a victim of the sacred-secular divide, science and religion need not be seen as rival descriptions of the way the world works. Christians may work in science, as elsewhere, serving Christ through their research, seeing it as part of their discipleship to explore God’s world on behalf of others. Christians need not fear careful, honest scientific investigation, and we all benefit from its results. But we also recognise the limits of science – that where it might be helpful in answering the ‘how’ questions, it might not be the most appropriate place to look for answers to the ‘why’ questions, particularly if those questions relate to ultimate issues of identity, purpose and hope.

Christians of all people should know that human experience is larger than science alone can describe, and will be cautious of scientism, where science itself becomes a belief system, where evolution is elevated from a theory (albeit in the technical sense of a coherent, well-ordered model that explains some part of the natural world) to an all-encompassing worldview.

The report maintains that we do not have to choose between ‘creation’ or ‘evolution’, since the two words describe different but complementary levels of discourse. Just as the Christian historian may acknowledge the ‘natural’ cause of an event in history and not thereby deny God’s providential oversight of history, so the Christian scientist might affirm God’s sovereignty in evolutionary history. The one form of explanation is complemented and completed, not necessarily contradicted, by other forms of explanation.

The doctrine of creation
Of course, significant questions about evolution remain, not least from a Christian perspective. The authors of the report try to answer charges that evolution is too wasteful, depends on chance, and involves suffering and death – arguing that these aren’t as problematic as has sometimes been claimed. But issues like this rightly stay on the agenda for debate.

Christians will want to set that discussion in a wider context of an affirmation that creation is not an accident of nature, but an act of God the Creator (however the mechanism of creation is understood). Along with creation goes an understanding of God’s providence, that he is the one who oversees and directs the created order. From a broader biblical perspective, creation and providence are not so much a claim about the processes by which the universe came into being, and more a claim about how everything depends on God, and of his commitment to restore it when it goes awry. It reminds us that though we are creatures of the earth, we are made in his image, and thus live differently in the world and in relation with others as a result. And reflection on creation leads us, as it does throughout Scripture, to praise and worship of our great God.

Further reading

Denis Alexander, God and Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford: Monarch, 2008).
A sustained case for a complementary reading of the ‘book’ of God’s word and the ‘book’ of God’s works.

R.J. Berry and T.A. Noble (eds.), Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009).
A collection of essays from key scholars exploring the interface between science and theology.

C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006).
A careful and reverent exposition of Genesis 1-4.

Daniel M. Harrell, Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008).
An engaging study of how we might rethink our theology and what the Bible says if evolution accurately describes how life came about.

Andrew S. Kulikovsky, Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation (Fearn: Mentor, 2009).
An interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis as a ‘straightforward historical account of the creation of the universe’.

Ernest Lucas, Can We Believe Genesis Today? The Bible and the Questions of Science, 3rd edn. (Leicester: IVP, 2005).
Very helpful on issues of interpreting the early chapters of Genesis.

Mark Pallen, The Rough Guide to Evolution (London: Rough Guides, 2009).
An accessible, well-illustrated treatment from a secular, scientific perspective.

Nick Spencer, Darwin and God (London: SPCK, 2009).
Seeks to clear misconceptions about Darwin’s religious views by telling Darwin’s story, drawing on his autobiography as well as manuscripts, notebooks and letters.

David Wilkinson, The Message of Creation (Leicester: IVP, 2002).
Reflection on biblical passages looking at the beginning of creation, the songs of creation, the Lord of creation, the lessons of creation, and the fulfilment of creation.

R.J. Berry on Creation and Evolution

R.J. Berry, ‘Creation and Evolution Not Creation or Evolution’, Faraday Paper No. 12 (2007).

The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion makes available a number of helpful papers, including this one by R.J. (Sam) Berry. It prints out to four A4 pages, and is a model in concise expression of huge areas of thought.

Here’s the summary:

‘This paper argues that it is a misconception to oppose the concepts of creation and evolution. “Creation” is a theological term acknowledging the dependence of all that exists upon the authorship of the Creator. “Evolution” refers to our current understanding as to how God has brought biological diversity into being. Both accounts are required to do justice to what we as scientists observe.’

Alister McGrath on Augustine on Origins

Alister McGrath, ‘Augustine’s Origin of Species: How the Great Theologian Might Weigh in on the Darwin Debate’, Christianity Today (May 2009).

I’d read somewhere previously that Augustine (354-430) was embarrassed by the ‘days’ in Genesis 1: why would it take God as long as six days to create the world?

Alister McGrath provides a brief summary of Augustine’s thinking here, based on the latter’s Literal Meaning of Genesis. McGrath writes of Augustine:

‘God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds which will grow and develop at the right time.’

However, Augustine has no place ‘for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation’, and God’s creation ‘is always subject to God’s sovereign providence’.

For Augustine, the six days of Genesis 1 are ‘a way of categorizing God’s work in creation. God created the world in an instant but continues to develop and mold it, even to the present day’.

McGrath notes that although Augustine does not necessarily answer the questions raised by Darwin and evolution, ‘he does help us see that the real issue here is not the authority of the Bible, but its right interpretation’.

The Bible in Transmission (Spring 2009): Darwin and his Legacy

Bible Society make a print version of this excellent publication freely available to subscribers as well as placing the articles online as pdfs and word documents. It’s the best free publication I receive through the post, and better than some I’ve paid money to subscribe to. Each edition is devoted to a particular theme and includes short essays, mostly written by experts in their field.

The latest edition (Spring 2009) is devoted to ‘Darwin and his Legacy’, and contains the following articles:

Michael Pfunder
Editorial

Nick Spencer
Charles Darwin: From Faith to Agnosticism

Michael J. Reiss
Should We Teach Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory in Schools?

Denis Alexander
Christians Misunderstanding Evolution

Ernest Lucas
Interpreting Genesis 1-3 in the Twenty-First Century

John Hedley Brooke
Christian Responses to Darwin: Some Necessary Distinctions

Mary Midgley
Sorting Out Pseudodarwinisms

James Catford
News from Bible Society

London School of Theology on Creation and Evolution

The Spring 2009 edition of London School of Theology’s InSight Magazine carries several short pieces devoted to the creation-evolution discussion.

It kicks off with a guest feature by Denis Alexander outlining reasons for the current antipathy towards evolution (it comes loaded with ideological connotations, the growth in biblical literalism, the power of modernism, and anti-science trends amongst Christians), concluding that ‘we do not need to choose between creation or evolution, because the two words are referring to two levels of complementary discourse’ (3).

Simon Steer makes a plea for our theology to be ‘ecologically literate’, showing how this is rooted in a biblical theology of creation, of the nature of humanity as created in God’s image, the emphasis on creation care throughout Scripture, as well as in the Trinity, sin, christology, and eschatology.

Graham McFarlane notes the importance of worldview, and suggests that ‘popular perceptions of evolution on their own are incapable of producing a viable worldview in which all human beings have worth whatever their status or capacity’ (7).

Jules Gomes questions whether the claims made for the scientific evidence of evolution are overdrawn.

Julie Robb acknowledges that micro-evolution occurs even while questioning whether macro-evolution (between species) does, and suggests we start by acknowledging the difference between theology and science, and ‘recognise the limits of each’ (11).

John Azumah reflects on African creation myths, noting the twofold function of such stories – to provide explanations for the ‘why’ of society, and to impart a particular value – and showing how this applies to the biblical story of creation and salvation.

Steve Motyer muses on how God works in his world, frequently in hidden, unexpected and less-than-obvious ways, and sometimes leaving us with questions, but always, with Paul in Romans 11:33-36, leading us to amazement and praise.

Theos on Faith and Darwin

Theos, a public theology think tank, kindly makes available a number of helpful reports related to Charles Darwin as part of ‘a wide-ranging project exploring the extent and nature of evolutionary and non-evolutionary beliefs in the UK today and their perceived relationship with theism and atheism’. The project is managed and run by Theos in partnership with the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

Caroline Lawes
Faith and Darwin: Harmony, Conflict, or Confusion?
Commissioned by Theos and conducted and analysed by ComRes, this study asked over 2,000 UK adults a range of questions on topics as wide-ranging as evolution, creationism, Intelligent Design, religion, purpose, humanity, design, and the nature and purpose of science.

Denis Alexander and Nick Spencer
Rescuing Darwin: God and Evolution in Britain Today
This report, written jointly by Nick Spencer of Theos and Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute, seeks to argue that Darwinian evolution does not necessitate atheism, and that Christianity and evolution are compatible.

Denis Alexander and Nick Spencer have each published books recently addressing the same broad area:

Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008).

Nick Spencer, Darwin and God (London: SPCK, 2009).