Christianity after Darwin

I’ve done some reading on the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. It’s an interesting conversation, but a good 50 years past it’s prime. For those unfamiliar, the short version is that evolution won. 99.9% of all scientist’s take it as a foregone conclusion. The question currently discussed in University’s around the world is not, “Is evolution true?” but rather, “Now that we understand that evolution is true (i.e. it’s how various species developed on this planet), what might this mean moving forward?” In other words, the entire scientific community has moved on to new questions. Of course, there are still a few outposts of dissent, but it’s a tiny band of circled wagons.

I’ve done some reading on the debate between those who hold to an inerrant view of Scripture vs. those who admit it has errors, historical fallacies, and even some diverse theological viewpoints. Again it’s an interesting debate but a good 50 years past it’s prime. Basically every professor of religion at every major University in the U.S. agrees that it isn’t accurate to speak of an “inerrant” Bible. This is also the position of the vast majority of seminaries in the U.S. and Europe. Most of these folks are Christians – just not the conservative variety. The question is no longer “Does the Bible have errors, contradictions, and differing theological viewpoints?” but rather, “What does it mean for our faith now that we know this to be the case? In what sense can we say the Bible the ‘Word of God’? How does this impact our search for Truth within it’s pages?” Difficult, but great questions.

I know some of what I’ve written above will be difficult, and potentially offensive, to many of my Evangelical brothers and sisters. However, my purpose in stating it in such a straight forward way is to help us realize how far out of touch we are with, not only the best minds of our culture (scientists, historians, philosophers, theologians, etc.) but the wider culture as well. I also realize that for many of us this is simply too big a leap to make. We literally can’t imagine a Christianity that is formed, not in opposition to the realities stated above, but with these truths fully accepted and integrated into the heart of the tradition. If that’s the case, then my final plea to you is this: if you’re not willing to go through the pain of integrating these ideas (and others like them) for yourself, then please consider doing it for your kids. Because when you raise your children in a way that causes them to be anti-science and anti-intellectual (either through overt gestures and statements or more passive means) then you’re setting them up for a difficult decision later in life (i.e. college or adulthood). This will be a situation where they may feel they have to choose between, on the one hand, a pre-modern world view (natural/supernatural distinction, three tier universe, and an anthropomorphic {human-esque} understanding of God) that their religious tradition adheres to, and on the other hand a post-modern worldview that’s moved beyond some of these concepts. I’m optimistic there’s a third way – namely, an understanding of Christianity that’s come to grips with a post-modern view of the world, however I don’t know think this is something we’re helping our children transition to very well.

–
P.S. This is in no way a secret post to my parents. Part of the reason I’m a Christian today is because they not only provided a great example of what love can look like, but the permission to think for myself and work out an understanding of faith that I can believe in.