Planting, Watering, Growing:  Planting Confessionally Reformed Churches in the 21^st Century edited by Daniel R. Hyde and Shane Lems (published 2011 by Reformation Heritage Books) is a unique set of essays by ministers and theologians, most who serve in the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA).  As the subtitle of the work suggests, the goal of this church planting book is to set forth a vision of church planting that is uniquely confessional and Reformed.  While other church plant manuals and guides might strongly imply a Reformed-ish theology and confess some of the ancient creeds of the church (or perhaps modern creeds, e.g. Lausanne or ICBI), Hyde and Lems believe that they and other contributors offer a unique perspective in church planting (though they favorably cite Planting an Orthodox Presbyterian Church as similar to their vision).

Some might be hesitant to take this work seriously as the URCNA and similar bodies haven’t made headlines with their success in church planting.  Others might assume that this book will be one that bashes other kingdom works in non-Reformed or pseudo-Reformed denominations and network.  However, there is much that is positive that one may gain from this work. (And there is even praise given to the Acts 29 Network, Ed Stetzer, Tim Keller, and other individuals and networks known for church planting vision.) (p. 236, 238)

First, there is an almost constant emphasis on mission, even being missional.  Reformed churches are often known as being the ‘frozen chosen’ (p. 25), but this book tries to overcome that moniker to present a spirited view of mission and fulfilling the Great Commission.  In the opening chapter, Brian Vos boldly states, “A church that does not die to self in service to Christ will necessarily turn inward and thereby lose her life.  The work of missions, evangelism, and church planting is vital to the life of the church.” (p. 15)

In writing about the heart needed for church planting, Paul T. Murphy is adamant that evangelism and mission isn’t just a tack-on to the church budget, but rather it is the church’s “identity”  so that we might build a worshipping community. (p. 70)  Murphy even goes on to give something close to an incarnational analogy when he says, “Since God is a missionary God who sent a missionary Son, who together sent a missionary Spirit, every church should be a missionary church.  What we need to do away with in the hearts and minds of our people is the distinction between a maintenance church and a missionary church.” (p. 71) Murphy even claims that evangelizing is the “responsibility of every Christian.” (p. 72)  Hyde has an excellent section of the church planter and witnessing (p. 117).  But perhaps this theme may be summarized by Lems who states, “We don’t plant churches just to reach the underfed; we plant churches to also reach those who have never been fed, who need to be led – like the Samaritan woman – to the well of Jesus.” (p. 235)

Second, there is an affirmation of the principle of contextualization.  The notion of contextualization is a controversial one, even among those in the same denomination.  Many of the church planting networks are known for their particular views on contextualization.   I found three of the chapters in the final section on the context of church planting to be outstanding (“Church Planting in a Melting Pot” by Shane Lems, “The Cultural Factor in Church Planting” by Mitchell Persaud, and “Growing Contextually Reformed Churches:  Oxymoron or Opportunity?” by Phil Grotenhuis).  Lems’ chapter is especially worth reading.

Lems makes the case that cultural context needs to be taken more seriously by church planters, though less seriously than our confessions. (p. 232) We don’t plant churches in a cultural vacuum, the planter must know and engage the cultural context wherein he plants. (p. 235) Lems compares church planters to missionaries, who must gain a competent understanding of the culture they live in.  Because of this, Lems firmly believes that a church plant “should be open to all sorts of peoples, traditions, and customs, and it should not try to force everyone into the same traditional mold.  What should bind the church plant (and all churches) together is the common confession of faith in Christ.” (p. 236) Lems goes on to give helpful suggestions on contextualization when it comes to worship, a meeting place, the church name, clothes, titles, language, Christian liberty, etc.

Other implications of contextualization noted by authors is that church planting should not demand a cookie-cutter method, which would be contrary to the theology of Luke-Acts. (p. 245) In addition, a more indirect (re: relational) approach to evangelism may be better suited in our post-Christian culture than the direct approach seen in many evangelism methods, e.g. Evangelism Explosion. (p. 248-250) Contextualization also should have us consider stylistic and semantic issues in worship and in the church’s ministries. (p. 250-272)

In summarizing the overall message of this book on contextualization, the authors, almost universally, would say that contextualization is unavoidable, we are tempted to overcontextualize or undercontextualize, the Scripture (and subordinate confessions) are always normative, and we need to pray for wisdom as to how we handle issues not explicitly mentioned in Scripture or our confessions.  One suggestion I would make is that WCF 1.6 is a guiding confessional principle on contextualization.

Finally, there is a helpful chapter  by Paul Murphy entitled “Church Planting:  A Covenantal and Organic Approach” that every church planter should consider.  Murphy, though positive about the evangelistic quality of a worship service, sees weekly, neighborhood ministry as an organic model for doing mission.  Murphy gives a test case showing how his congregation in New York City ministers to unbelievers through creative ministries that meet people where they are.  The ‘covenantal’ aspect deals more with an emphasis on families, Christian day schools, and children in worship.  Of the three, only the first and third distinctive may be said to be ‘normative’ if one is trying to extract a ‘covenantal’ approach from Scripture.  While I personally am a fan of Christian schools as a means to doing mission, I would put that distinctive below families and children in worship. (Although, one might need to handle families and children in a different manner, depending on the cultural context.  If one is church planting in a city that has a high divorce rate, fewer children, and more singles, the communication of these principles will look different than in a typical Reformed church in the suburbs or rural countryside.)

While these two themes in the book, along with many other helpful sections and chapters, are enough to warrant a positive review, there do remain some concerns that I want the reader to be aware of.  While the book as a whole is positive when it comes to mission and contextualization, there are occasional contradictions by other authors (and sometimes the same author) on these themes.

Michael Horton doesn’t see a problem with the term missional if applied in a faithful manner.  (p. 54) Though, Horton is not always clear as to how creative a local church may be when he claims, “The mission of the church is simply to execute these tasks faithfully.” (p. 55) “These tasks” are the proper preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, and discipline.  Yet, this emphasis would have one look to Lord’s Day worship not as one of the most important aspects of the life of the church, but as the only aspect of the life of the church.  This is seemingly in tension with Hyde’s claim that church plants must be “creative” and “proactive” to begin a work of the kingdom instead of just waiting for people to come to a worship gathering (“Build it and they will come” philosophy of ministry).  Murphy also seems in tension with Horton in stating, “I do not want to diminish the significance of the official nature of that office and proclamation, but in addition to an official proclamation of the gospel in preaching, there is an unofficial spreading of the gospel in preaching.” (p. 73) Perhaps a distinction between Ministry (Lord’s Day worship) and ministry (done by the laypeople during the week) would be helpful as this seems to be the point Paul makes in Eph 4:11-13.

I’m also still confused as to what makes a church plant “confessional” and “Reformed” versus those that aren’t.  While I think many of us might be able to tell if a church is these things, there wasn’t a chapter in the book or a long section explaining these distinctives.  It seems that some of the contributors would criticize churches that are members of Reformed denominations that hold to a historic Reformed confession but that there is still “something missing” from these churches.  What is that something missing?  I could never put my finger on it.  Maybe they are missing a particular view of confessional subscription, a particular order of worship, etc?

Also, would the contributors of this book admit that a non-Reformed church, even a non-denominational church, might still be confessional or even Reformed on some level?  Now, I myself am a member of a Reformed denomination (ARP) and I think there is much benefit to being connectional in such a manner, but I wish more clarity and precision was present in the book to look at some of these issues.  Perhaps the lack of such precision has to do with the fact that several of the chapters (six total) are reprinted from other publications.  

There is plenty of material that this book doesn’t cover, and the confusion and contradictions betweens some of the authors diminishes the book’s overall usefulness.  Still, it warrants a positive review and recommendation.  I would have aspiring and veteran church planters read it as well as denominational officials interested in the work of church planting.

First, Enns doesn’t give his reading audience enough hermeneutical and exegetical options to make decisions for themselves.  He claims to be writing this book for evangelicals that wrestle with modern science and an infallible Bible, and we assume he would want to assist them through the murky waters of our first parents and recent findings in genetics.  Yet, after Enns gives the reader material concerning the literary genre of the Pentateuch and its literary comparison to other ANE myths, he corners one into a particular conclusion (or, at least a better conclusion than some irrational alternative).  Yet, plenty of biblical scholars who recognize the parallels between OT literature and other ANE literature acknowledge much of what Enns puts in his book, but they don’t see only two options before them (the Bible has nothing to do with ANE literature, or the Bible cares little for history when it parallels ANE literature).  John Walton, John Oswalt, Bruce Waltke, and others have shown a better and more nuanced way to handle this issue as evangelicals.  Not surprisingly, Enns does something similar in Inspiration and Incarnation where he assumes a major problem for evangelicals even though evangelicals have been thoroughly aware of the “problem” for a good while.

Second, Enns clearly has shown the implication of his work found in Inspiration and Incarnation in claiming that Paul (and, by consequence, Scripture) teaches error.  While Enns does try to soften the blow a bit by telling the reader that his exegesis of Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Tim 2, etc. isn’t the mainstream evangelical viewpoint and that it is a difficult conclusion to accept (even claiming that his perspective shouldn’t be the last viewpoint on the subject), there is a serious blow dealt to the doctrine of Scripture.  The nuance of inerrancy as stated all the way back to Warfield and through doctrinal statements such as Chicago is that while Scripture may contain facets that are false or immoral, it is what Scripture teaches or intends/means for the reader that is inerrant or infallible.  Yet, Enns goes against this nuance in claiming that Scripture and Paul teach a historical Adam and intend for the reader to adopt the same conclusion even though such a belief is false.

Third, in relation to my first point, Enns doesn’t give the reader the various hermeneutical paradigms by which they may interpret Scripture.  Enns’ hermeneutic is very a narrow grammatical-historical method that has little room for any notion of sensus plenior or expanded meaning intended by the divine author.  Even if Enns doesn’t give credence to such paradigms, he should do the reader a favor and lay out those various options for him/her, especially since this field has been ripe with development and a multitude of perspectives.

Finally, Enns doesn’t just lead readers astray on the doctrine of Scripture.  He also gives credence to N.T. Wright’s interpretation of the Reformation emphasis on justification and Wright’s exegesis of Pauline soteriology/ecclesiology.  Although Enns’ comments are very dated and don’t take into account the progress of the debate in recent years (see Kevin Vanhoozer’s masterful critique of Wright), this brief section is unhelpful (and even off-topic to a certain degree).

An additional thought of mine is more existential than theological.  I get the sense from Enns in his books, blogs, and statements that he is bitter and has an agenda.  I’m sure his dismissal from Westminster Theological Seminary and, essentially, from the conservative evangelical arena has been difficult.  My sinful nature would manifest itself in a more visible manner if something similar would happen to me.  However, if any sort of agenda related to the controversy over Inspiration and Incarnation is driving his current work, then I cannot recommend Enns to students and learned laypeople.  Theology should be done with both excellence in craft as well as sanctification in one’s soul.  If either is missing, I don’t recommend that person’s work.  Even if Enns provides some helpful insights, his lack of precision and his lacking a God-honoring mindset should make pastors and scholars uneasy in recommending Enns’ scholarship.  There are plenty of other resources where one might get the best Enns offers without the worst that is present in his work.

Okay, now it is time to make a fool of myself for the NFL postseason.  Lets look at the matchups for this weekend.

AFC

Cincinnati Bengal @ Houston Texans

This is the worst game of the weekend, and it could be a blow out.  Of all the road teams this weekend, I think Cincy has the best shot to win.  Injuries has decimated Houston to the point where they are the least likely team to make a deep playoff run.  They have hobbled into the playoffs and have not won against good competition since week 14 against…the Bengals.  They only beat the Bengals by one point, and the Bengals are battle tested.  Houston only has one significant edge, they have two 1000 yard rushers (maybe the best rushing team since the Broncos of he late 1990s).  Their defense is also better, but I can’t see this team putting up more than 20 points.

Cincy 24, Houston 13

Pittsburgh Steelers @ Denver Broncos

TeeeeeeeeeeeBOOOOOOW!  Hey, someone needs to sound excited talking about this guy.  Alright, the world is down on Tebow after three losses with two of those losses turning out bad Tebow performances.  I think analysts are right in saying that Tebow’s confidence has been shot the last couple of weeks.  But!  Things are in Denver’s favor.  They play at home.  Their defense matches up well with Pittsburgh.  Pittsburgh is decimated by injuries.  Tebow needs to make 4-5 big plays to have a shot at winning this game, but he has the capability to do that.  In a defensive struggle, its an offense that can make those 4-5 big plays down the stretch that win.  But!  Pittsburgh is good at making those 4-5 plays.  I see Tebow playing well (for Tebow), but a last minute drive led by Big Ben and a field goal crushes the good folk at Mile High.  Still, Tebow’s performance will secure his starting job at least until the beginning of next season.

Pittsburgh 19 Denver 17

NFC

Detroit Lions @ New Orleans Saints

This is officially the most exciting game of the weekend.  Two hot quarterbacks with big time tight ends and receivers.  And two defenses with big play ability but who still can’t make a stop on third down or in the red zone.  It will be a wild one in the Bayou, but not for long.  Teams that come to the Super Dome don’t just get beaten, they get blown out!  The only team that lost by 7 or less points at the Super Dome was Houston in week 3.  The Saints beat the Lions handily in New Orleans in week 13.  While the Lions are excited to play their first playoff game since 1999, and they would rather play indoors rather than in the Meadowlands, it is difficult seeing a hot Drew Brees let these immature Lions win a playoff game in the Dome.

Saints 48 Lions 28

Atlanta Falcons @ New York Gaints

This is the most difficult game to predict for the weekend.  Both teams have been up and down all season showing dominance one week and abysmal play the next.  The Giants have been more inconsistent, though.  Also, while both teams are flawed, their flaws are different from the other.  The Giants can generate a strong pass rush, but they can’t stop the pass downfield.  Falcons can’t get a pass rush, but their secondary helps minimize big plays (but only temporarily).  Giants can’t run or stop the run, and the Falcons can run and stop the run…but not when they play on the road.  Fortunately for the Falcons, the Giants play worse at home than on the road.  It may be a blessing in disguise to play in chilly Jersey than in Hotlanta’s Georgia Dome.  Of all the weaknesses on both teams, I think the Falcons inability to generate a pass rush will be their downfall.  Eli makes big plays when he has time, and that may allow Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs to bust enough big runs to seal the victory.  Eli and Coughlin get their first postseason win since winning the Super Bowl.

Giants 34 Falcons 30

I am stuck in the middle of this debate in siding with both groups.  As a six day, young earth creationist I am in agreement with Carlton Wynne, G.I. Williamson, Matt Miller, William VanDoodewaard, and Peter VanDoodewaard regarding the interpretation of Genesis 1.  Yet, I am in agreement with Evans in his analysis of Old Princeton, inerrancy, and the secondary importance of protology as compared to more central doctrines (e.g. penal substitution).

So, what is my proposal?  I propose that six day, young earth creationists should not view their doctrinal stance as a ‘closed-handed’ doctrine or that a difference of opinion on the interpretation of Genesis 1 directly affects one’s view of Scripture’s authority (though certainly, some interpretations would have direct bearing on inerrancy).  Yet, I contend Evans is wrong to assume that a young earth position is necessarily incoherent with general revelation as we know it.  In this debate, there has been little attention paid to logical and philosophical precision to conclude whether a young earth position is truly incoherent with the evidence for an old earth.

This does not mean that both positions are correct, but I am claiming that in debating a doctrine of secondary importance that charity should rule the day and that those who have done extensive reading, exegesis, thinking, and prayer on the matter and who humbly come to either conclusion may respect their opponents and see the a priori plausibility of an opposing position.

Young Earthism and Speed of Light

The problem of light years has been noted by Evans as problematic for the young earth position.  Indeed, I agree with Vern Poythress in his well-argued book, Redeeming Science:  A God-Centered Approach that traditional creationists have poorly handled this issue in trying to demonstrate the flawed metrics of measuring the speed of light.  Poythress notes that some young earth creationists apply the ‘mature creation’ theory to many aspects of our cosmos but refrain from doing so when it comes to the speed of light and the distance of stars from our planet.

However, Evans has noted that the mature creation theory may not suffice since God is left being seen as a deceiver and overly concerned with modern presuppositions.  I am very sympathetic to Evans and others on this point since young earth creationists have poorly handled this issue .  Perspectives that try to question the metrics of measuring the speed of light or one that merely says “We don’t know” aren’t sufficient in a post-Christian culture that constantly questions the veracity of sacred Scripture.  Christians who take a traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 and hold to a young earth need a more nuanced response.

I propose two considerations.  First, there is coherence between the proposition stating a young earth and current factual evidence which speaks to the age of the earth.  Second, a Christian may be warranted (or rational) to believe in a young earth.  Concerning my first claim, it is important to distinguish coherence and correspondence.  I am not claiming that the proposition of a young earth corresponds to the actual state of affairs of the cosmos (a notion of probability).  All that is claimed is that it is ‘possible’ for the earth to be young in spite of evidence for an old earth.

This coherence theory is dependent, largely, upon a ‘mature creation’ model.  Indeed, the young earth creationist has a reason for holding to some form of the theory.  According to Genesis 2, if Adam was specially created, then God at one point fashioned part of his creation with the intent to have something look or seem older than it really is.  There is no reason why God may or may not do this with more portions of his created work. (In the Incarnation there is the paradox of Jesus appearing younger than he really is!)

But, does this theory hold up concerning the speed of light and the appearance of stars that are millions of light years away from the earth?  To uphold my claim for coherence, I only need to show that it is possible that God has a good reason to make stars appear older than they really are (as he did with Adam).  Does Scripture give us any teaching on this matter?  I contend that it does.  God, may have wanted human creatures, or even animal creatures, to enjoy his handiwork in the sky/heavens.  In addition, God may have wanted human creatures at later points in history to glorify his handiwork (Psalm 8:3).  Stars were to serve a purpose in God’s good creation as signs to mark seasons as well as lights during the night (Gen 1:14-15).  God may have had concern for those who navigate at night and designed stars to fulfill a good purpose to assist human agents made in his image.

The story of redemption also sees value in visible stars.  God would appeal to stars and constellations as an apologetic for his sovereignty (Job 38:31-32).  Stars are a sign/symbol of Abraham’s seed/offspring which is fulfilled in Christ (Gen 15:5; 22:17; Gal 3:16).  Jesus himself is spoken of in prophetic forms of speech as a star (Num 24:17; Rev 22:16).  God saw it good to use stars to assist the wise men in finding the promised Messiah (Matt 2:9-10) and to speak of the Second Coming (Matt 24:29; Mark 13:24-26; Luke 21:25-26).

Even a Christian who doesn’t hold to a young earth must admit the possibility of God creating stars with apparent maturity/age so as to accomplish various purposes.  Given the magnitude and importance of stars in redemptive history, it is proper to think God could have made stars with maturity for his own glory.  This notion of possibility/coherence doesn’t presume probability/correspondence.  This claim only allows the young earth creationist to say in the manner of Lloyd Christmas, “So…you’re saying there is a chance!”

But, this notion of coherence goes further.  Poythress, though himself an old earth analogical days proponent, makes a credible case for young earth theorists with his discussion of coherent maturity and ideal time.  It is more than possible for a young earth creationist advocate to respect the integrity of dating techniques so long as they presuppose the notion of coherent maturity and measure the cosmos according to its ideal time, just as Adam might have done when he examined his one day old bride and deciphered her ideal age/maturity.  A scientist, according to Poythress, would not waste his/her time studying rocks in ideal time since ideal time may reveal the wisdom and glory of God.

My second claim is that a young earth creationist may be warranted, or rational, to believe his position is true and corresponds to both special revelation and general revelation.  Here, I am presupposing Alvin Plantinga’s fine work in religious epistemology and refinement of that work by James Anderson in his Paradox in Christian Theology.  In assuming that a Christian theist is regenerate, has properly functioning cognitive faculties (which are purposed toward believing true propositions), and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit (and, to Evans’ liking, is united to Christ and possesses all his benefits) then we may have some confidence in this Christian theist that his/her reading of the Bible will attain true beliefs based on true propositions contained in Scripture.  Now, concerning the interpretation of Genesis 1, we would not know at this point if the Christian theist is warranted in their particular interpretation of that text, especially concerning the age of the earth and the length of creation days.  However, let us suppose this Christian theist has grown up in a sound, Bible-believing church, is reasonably educated (with at least a Bachelor’s degree from a respected institution), has read the essential literature on the subject, may read biblical Hebrew, has wrestled with various interpretations of the text (six day, analogical days, literary framework, day age, theistic evolution, etc.), studied church history in relation to the debate, has asked the Holy Spirit for illumination and guidance into truth, and has reread the passage many times over the course of several years.  After all this, the Christian theist humbly accepts a six day, young earth position as the most sensible interpretation of the text.  This individual also wrestles with evidence from science and the mainstream conclusions of science.  This Christian, in balancing their interpretation of Scripture with the strong conclusions from modern scientists is trying to put Scripture in sync with general revelation.  After a long time struggling with this issue, the Christian decides to remain steadfast in their interpretation of Genesis 1 and adopts a type of coherence theory partially outlined in previous paragraphs.

The question is, assuming the veracity of the Christian faith in its orthodox components, may one rightly claim that this Christian theist is warranted in their belief on the matter?  I don’t see why not.  Someone of a different persuasion may ask this Christian to reexamine the exegetical, hermeneutical, theological, and scientific aspects of the passage that they have considered previously.  The Christian may oblige and do more competent studying and praying, but they still are persuaded in heart and mind that Genesis 1 teaches that God made the earth in six days and that the earth is relatively young according to ideal time.

If this Christian is humble in their conclusion and gladly accepts the fellowship of Christians who may embrace other interpretations within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy (and there are several), I think the right response would be to claim that they are warranted to believe their interpretation and to believe it as a secondary doctrine compared to more gospel-centered doctrines such as penal substitutionary atonement.

The Possibility of Non-Literal Views

But, we could come up with similar scenarios for those who are not six day creationists!  This story might be about one who comes to the conclusion of Meredith Kline (literary framework), Herman Bavinck (analogical days), or J. Gresham Machen (day age).  Part of the exercise for these Christians would be to wrestle with the question of coherence regarding the possibility of God using the evolutionary process in creation.  Indeed, in another possible world, God could have used something other than special creation with certain facets of creation.  Even within a six day perspective, God, through his Word, creates out of nothing and also creates/forms out of pre-existing material (e.g. Adam and Eve from dirt and a Adam’s side).  Also, in Genesis 2, God gives providential, creative care over a garden plants, which gives the possibility of process in creation.  In another possible world, these means of ‘creating’ could vary and be different.  Perhaps God creates Adam and Eve from nothing, or he gives a providential care for their process of coming into being.  None of these possibilities violate God’s essential nature.

A Christian of a different perspective on the days of creation and age of the earth might wrestle with the exegesis of the biblical text and, similar to our previous Christian theist friend, come to a different conclusion.  Indeed, while there are problematic issues with literary framework, analogical days, and day age perspectives, the six day perspective is not without initial difficulties.  Six day proponents need to wrestle with issues such as the sun, moon, and stars created on day four after plants are created, the uniqueness of the seventh day (which doesn’t appear to be twenty-four hours), the ‘because it had not rained’ argument of Meredith Kline, the literary artistry of Genesis 1, and the polemical intent of Moses to counter ANE creation myths.

Yet, the non-literal views have difficulties to wrestle through.  The fourth commandment suggests the simple historicity of Genesis 1 (Ex 20:11).  The presence of vav consecutives in Genesis 1 is a marker for narrative prose in Hebrew.  The refrain of ‘evening and morning’ suggests something strikingly close to the traditional view.  Finally, the complexity of day age, analogical days, and literary framework views leads one to question whether the original reading audience would understand such complex exegesis.

This debate over biblical protology is similar to that of biblical eschatology wherein all millennial views have there difficulties and shouldn’t be viewed as a test of orthodoxy.  Christians who hold to a particular millennial viewpoint may firmly believe their position but still understand why others take a different position and admit the difficulties involved with their own position.

Application

I have a few thoughts for those who participate in this debate going forward.

1.  Theological.  There is a reason why six day creation is not regarded as an essential doctrine in the Great Tradition.  In two thousand years there has been no monolithic stance on the days of Genesis.  Even if a majority of Christian interpreters have taken the traditional view, we should take notice that the interpretation over the nature of the days has never been made a case for orthodoxy.

2.  Exegetical.  I’ve noticed that Christians who are six day creationists have more leniency and respect for proponents of literary framework, analogical days, etc. when they have read the major works by evangelical scholars.  Indeed, one finds a great respect for the authority of Scripture and its inerrancy when one reads Meredith Kline’s “Because it Had Not Rained” in proposing his literary framework model.  Both John C. Collins and Vern Poythress are very persuasive in their proposal of the Genesis days being analogical to God’s working days (and reconciling that view to Exodus 20:11).  While I myself am not convinced of their conclusions, I cannot in good conscience say that these Christian brothers in their scholarship are drastically undermining the authority of Scripture.  Reading their work shows their carefulness in handling the sacred text.

3.  Hermeneutical.  Much has been made of Evans’ insistence that the interpreter should see the background of ANE literature and concerns in framing the shape of the Genesis text.  Indeed, Evans is correct and has good evangelical backing in claiming that the literary artistry of Genesis 1-11 is shaped by ANE creation stories and myths.  Evans and others, though, would agree with Kenneth A. Kitchen that ANE writers didn’t historicize myth, but rather they mythologized actual history.  This is the opposite of approach of Pete Enns found in his Inspiration and Incarnation.  I think much more charity is needed on this issue as Evans and others seem to hold to a high view of Scripture that is equivalent to that of Old Princeton.  The notion of ‘accomodation’ and phenomenological language, which Evans is indebted to in his interpretation, has the solid backing of John Calvin.

4.  Historical.  Evans is correct in his historical analysis of Old Princeton and the various views of inerrancy.  Regarding inerrancy and its nuance in definition, one need only read works such as The Infallible World:  A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (especially Paul Woolley’s chapter), Scripture & Truth, and Hermeneutics, Authority, & Canon (both edited by John D. Woodbridge and D.A. Carson).  Even the edited work by Norman Geisler, Inerrancy, has helpful chapters which nuance the authority of Scripture in a helpful manner (especially the chapters by Greg Bahnsen and Paul Feinberg).  Peter VanDoodewaard seems to accept Evans’ historical analysis, yet he still thinks Old Princeton should be thrown under the bus though it was Hodges, Warfield, and Machen that preserved inerrancy for future evangelicals.  The argument from Evans and others is not that one need agree with the Old Princetonians on every doctrinal point (Evans certainly doesn’t as evidenced in his monumental Imputation and Impartation:  Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology).  Rather, Evans and others are contending that recent proposals by Williamson, Wynne, and others narrow the Reformed Tradition to such an extent that would have to remove Hodge, Warfield, and Machen from our presbytery rolls.  Indeed, the irony here is that Machen’s Warrior Children would defrock Machen himself!

5.  Science and Faith.  Contrary to the claims of some, Evans has never claimed to place general revelation on equal footing with Scripture or that Scripture somehow submits to the power and politics of academia.  Even if I disagree with Evans regarding the exegesis of Genesis 1, a charitable reading of Evans shows he stands within the tradition of Old Princeton and his education at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia under the tutelage of Richard Gaffin, Sinclair Ferguson, and others.  What critics of Evans fail to realize is that the Westminster Confession of Faith does not present to us a hermeneutic for relating scientific inquiry and discovery to the teaching of Scripture.  There are multiple models currently presented as seen in J.P. Moreland’s Christianity and the Nature of Science:  A Philosophical Investigation.  It seems that critics of Evans know of only two possible models for faith and science dialogue when the reality of the case is much more complex.  The discussion going forward needs to have better awareness of the literature available.

6.  Pastoral Ministry.  The essential concern of Evans is also my own concern.  Statistics show that our young people in our churches are leaving the faith.  Ed Stetzer in his research has demonstrated that the younger unchurched are largely dissatisfied with the answers given by the church.  While it is tempting to give the Calvinist answer, “Well, they aren’t regenerate,” I think a more caring response is needed.  Conservative Reformed churches do not do a good job pastoring young people who have questions regarding faith and science.  Some of these young people majored in the sciences in college or even have a career as an evolutionary biologist.  They come into our church having many questions about whether they can be a Christian and do excellent work in a vocation that requires a certain scientific paradigm that may oppose our interpretation of Genesis 1-11.  Traditional answers from Answers in Genesis or other young earth organizations are inadequate.  Nor should we tell these young adults that they should erect “two kingdoms” that hardly intersect with one another.  It is also insufficient to give no response.  Our pastors need to be ‘generalists’ that interact with literature in theology, philosophy, the sciences, history, etc.  At the very least, they should point to resources that will competently assist young adults.  I again would recommend Poythress’ Redeeming Science as the most balanced product available.

Let us pray for charity, unity, and continued dialogue in our churches, presbyteries, and internet blogs on this important issue.

I did some research through Google (what else?) and found the following blog w/ comments thread.  If you scroll down to the comments and begin with the ID “peteenns” on November 24, 2011 you will see an exchange where Enns states he left BioLogos.  Enns goes on to claim that BioLogos didn’t renew his contract since they are “moving in a more conservative direction, i.e., keeping Southern Baptists and other literalists on board.”

I am not sure if Enns is going more leftward (as claimed by this OT scholar) or if BioLogos is going more conservative as claimed by Enns.  Perhaps a little bit of both is true.

While I have no personal ill toward Enns, I do think this move is for the best.  While I have been uncomfortable with some of the papers, posts, and videos from BioLogos (particularly on Adam & Eve), I never wished the death sentence on the organization.  We need Christian theologians and Christian scientists (lower case ‘s’) to dialogue and engage one another on these issues within the boundaries of orthodoxy (i.e. the Great Tradition).  BioLogos started off with a reputation toward this end (Erskine College & Seminary’s own President David Norman helped edit the early content).

In my opinion, the organization failed in its rhetorical humility, philosophical precision, and theological competency.  The tone was somewhat militant against any group that disagreed with theistic evolution.  In addition, as with the faith & science debate in general, the lack of professional Christian (evangelical) philosophers to steer some of the issues hurt the dialogue as brash statements and unwarranted conclusions were given without careful thinking.  Finally, the theological and exegetical competency was hurt by the hiring of Enns himself.  Even if Enns has something useful to offer to the discussion, he currently generates more heat than light and only turns away many evangelicals who know his backstory.

In other words, BioLogos seemed to care little for the sensitivity of Bible-believing evangelicals who may also see the high value of engaging general revelation.  The fact that BioLogos (with the exception of articles here and there) didn’t seek more gracious, nuanced avenues of persuasion and didn’t help readers put together a compelling perspective as to the relationship between general revelation and special revelation (as well as failing to give an explicit definition of Scripture’s authority) left the organization wide open for criticism.

All this to say, I hope this is a new chapter for BioLogos and other organizations like it.

(And this is coming from a six day young earth ‘literalist’!)