Christopher Henderson
Paul Gutacker addressed his concerns about the Bryan Board’s recent clarification clause in a letter to the editor. I would like to examine what he says as it seems that he may be arguing past the present problem. He concerns himself with the revision as it might “rule out evolution.” But, the fact is, this decision does so only in certain cases and I’m surprised that he doesn’t get that. It handles very specifically the historicity and the divine, immediate fiat of man’s (namely Adam’s and Eve’s) creation. A multitude of nonliteral views are still in play. The Gap theory lives on as do others. Let me encourage readers to not miss that.
In one of his first moves, he goes after Haynes’ position warning the Board: “…the interpretive stance—wherein scripture is considered specific and straightforward—implicit in Haynes’ assertion has some historical analogs that are troubling. This was, after all, the hermeneutic employed by some evangelical Christians in the nineteenth century who argued that the straightforward, simple understanding of scripture permitted slavery…This is not, by any means, to say that youngearth creationists are the equivalent of proslavery exegetes…Rather, it is to point out that some Christians have at times seen clarity and specificity in scripture where it does not exist; further, these Christians tend to see any arguments to the contrary as debasing scripture. Anyone who disagrees with Haynes, by his lights, is not honestly seeking to understand scripture but is guilty of cuttingandpasting scripture to suit their own purposes. Evolutionists, Haynes must conclude, willfully deny the plain truth of scripture and thus undermine its authority. Nineteenthcentury abolitionists, of course, were accused of the same sacrilege.”
Baffling here is that Gutacker claims he doesn’t want to paint Haynes in specific or Young Earth Creationists (YECs hereafter) in general as reasoning like slavery advocates. Mind you, that doesn’t prevent him for making the comparison anyway. In debate, playing the racism/slavery card it is a well known ploy to poison the well. It is cheap and doesn’t really advance the dialogue. Typically, it polarizes the camps. I held my breath fearing the Hitler card was next. We were spared, for that I’m thankful.
In the historical test case he uses for those ‘straightforward and specific’ folk getting it wrong (ie. 19th century American slavery,) both camps accepted the ‘slavery’ passages as ‘straightforward and specific’ in one regard. Yet they also both wrestled with the text on another level. The issue there was not a matter of straightforward vs nuanced allowances in exegesis entirely. The issue was rather a matter of whether modern day adoption and application of this Hebrew national law in modern societies was permissible. Both grappled with that, and had some exegetical heavy lifting to do. Slavery proponents appealed to Bible texts other Biblical texts were used in support including nonliteral (or at least nonstraightforward) applications. However nuanced, abolitionists appealed to other ‘straightforward’ data in Scripture in opposition, stating that redemptive history updated the use of this Hebrew national law. Note that the latter used information from within the Scripture, not exterior data, to resolve the matter. (Incidentally, not so with theistic evolution.)
Gutacker oversimplifies the dilemma and blames the ‘straightforward, specific’ folk for faulty
exegesis which lead to the US racebased chattel slave trade. The fact is, there was a tandem effort that philosophically and theologically supported this terrible practice. Nuanced views of passages from the Pentateuch were assumed to be applicable to modern human societies. Nuanced was the reading into those passages that slavery was for black people, an idea which was imported wholesale. This view was provided by two sources. One was from those who nuanced the view that the American nation was similar to the Hebrew theocracy which allowed taking “foreigners” as servants typically in America, this was used as a pretext to specifically enslave Africans, ‘those foreign heathens’ (mind you, they didn’t bother to thoroughly deal with texts that prescribed the death penalty for kidnappers and other such regulatory passages protecting slaves.) This was done by those ‘straightforward’ slavery advocates. But the second part, and very large part, was played by those nuanced evolutionists who had recently come along teaching that Africans were inferior to the caucasian, having not evolved as far up the ‘personhood’ chain. Therefore, enslaving an ‘inferior’ being became far less a crisis. This is noted by Stephen Jay Gould in his remarks: “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859 [the year of publication of “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life] but they increased by orders of magnitude following acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Regrettably it seems that many, perhaps most, in the Christian church bought into this as well. Don’t assume this is as simple as he suggests. He leaves out the part that harms his own argument. Overall his example doesn’t illustrate the problem well. If nothing else, it demonstrates the opposite in many respects. I’d suggest that next time a different historical interpretive dilemma be picked. Further, I would recommend that he not pick the emotionally injected issue of race relations in order to inflate his point.
Moving on, Gutacker is concerned that due diligence is not done in those theological sticky wickets of Genesis 1 and 2, to wit, “Should we conclude that [Gen. 1, 2 text] gives us very specific information on how days or plants could have existed at one point before the creation of the sun?”
He gives us a bit of heavy lifting to do. I’m neither a trained scientist nor a professional theologian, but I’ll take a crack at it. First, in terms of solar reference for time keeping, we learn that the stars, moon, etc were for signs and seasons…for humanity. I know of noone who suggests that these ‘signs and seasons’ are time markers for Jehovah. These were put in place for us, which is clarified for us in the very text itself, to wit: Gen 1:14 “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” (Italics mine) So the absence of the Sun prior to day four of creation presents no obstacle for the Almighty. I don’t picture Him struggling during creation to keep up with just how long it took. Besides, He was the only one there to observe a ‘morning and evening’ prior to day six, so the matter is pretty moot. To his second grave concern: plants surviving 24 hours without sunlight. So by the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, at longest, plantlife might have been without sunlight for a day. That really is not a problem for YEC position. There was some form of “light” available at day one. Whether that satisfied the photosynthetic needs of the plant life is uncertain. However, photosynthetic organisms wouldn’t
suffer in so short a deprivation. Even in our current day, they go without sunlight for about 12 hours in the average day globally. However, for those who hold that uncounted ages passed between creation of plants and the sun ok, now we now have a problem. For all the serious complications of exegeting Genesis 1 and 2, he seeks to complicate matters that are (dare I say?) “specific and straightforward.”
Then we get a history lesson: “Let’s not dwell on the awkward fact that, upon its founding, the College sought to make J. Gresham Machen (who believed evolution and Christianity were compatible) its first president.”
Yes, and Dr. Machen (one of the founders of the denomination to which I belong) believed this in the face of the fact that the confession to which he subscribed (the Westminster Confession of Faith) clearly outlined YEC in very explicit terms: Chapter IV sec. I. “It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.” (italics mine) He took exception to this section. For all my respect for Machen, I must say that this is no credit to him nor the broader Christian Church.
After Gutacker is done quibbling at fundamentalism vs. evangelicalism, he launches into imputation of sinful motives: “This move is defensive and fearful.” Here he fails at 1 Cor 2:11 “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” No kindness or grace is shown for what was put into this decision as he jumps straight to condemning the Board members’ hearts, proposing to know that they were sinful. Give him three sentences and he softens: “I’m sure that the Board is sincere when it says that it wants to go about this in the right way.” Now he grants them charity! Which is it? Sincere and attempting to move in the “right way?” Or, “defensive and fearful?” Earlier in his letter, Gutacker was concerned about the Board being ‘selfcontradictory.’ Perhaps they are. But, if they are, they appear to have a competitor.
Another thing that deserves attention are the theologians he notes for alternate perspectives on origins. Several theologians’ names were dropped to bolster his argument. I’ll consider a few:
Warfield: He did admit to affirming evolution as a young man. But he rejected it very early in his career. He himself describes this in these words shortly before his death: (In response to an acquaintance who claimed that all scientists under 35 years at that point in history [1916] were evolutionists he says,) “…I was the last man in the world to wonder at that, since I was about [35 years old] myself before I outgrew [the theory of evolution.]” (“Personal Recollections,” p 652.) He would die five years later and no evidence exists that he ‘grew back into it.’ I concede that he remained ‘open’ to the idea. But that does not equal another scholar in the OEC column.
Calvin: definitely YEC. In his magnum opus he writes, “They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of
the universe.” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion vol 2, p. 925.) Also of note, “Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men…I have said above that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the contemplation of his works.” (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 78, 105.) Incidentally, Calvin would approve the Board’s clarification statement, to wit, “… [Moses] distinguishes between our first parents and the rest of mankind, because God had brought them into life by a singular method, whereas others had sprung from previous stock, and had been born of parents.” (ibid, 227.)
Augustine: instantaneous creationist everything was created the second God spoke it. A rare case in theological history. See Calvin’s refutation above. This doesn’t help the Old Earth Creation (OEC hereafter) position nor does it eliminate a historical humanity of divine, immediate fiat; this does little more than simply attempt a case for ‘alternate’ views. Augustine was a YoungER Earth Creationist.
Lewis: OEC…and notoriously neoorthodox on most every major theological issue, failing (or being terribly unclear) at such vital issues as: inerrancy of Scripture, Christ’s infallibility, justification by faith alone in Christ, eternal punishment, the exclusivity of Christ’s salvation, etc. I would suggest that every serious Christian person take a close look at his teaching and find another champion of the faith. A few examples (as there are MANY): “I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him.” (Letters of C. S. Lewis, 428.) “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place…[this is] certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible…The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance [Mark 13:32] grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt….The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some
sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so.” (The World’s Last Night and Other Essays, 1960, 9899), “I had some ado to prevent Joy (and myself) from lapsing into paganism in Attica! At Daphni it was hard not to pray to Apollo the healer. But somehow one didn’t feel it would have been very wrong would have only been addressing Christ subspecie Apollonius” (C.S. Lewis to Chad Walsh, May 23, 1960, cited from George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis, 1994, p. 378); “But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are…There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the
background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position” (Mere Christianity, 64, 208, 209) I have a five page document filled with similar atrocities from Lewis’ works/correspondences, and those are just the ones I could uncover in my limited research.
Waltke: OEC and part of an organization that unashamedly says (as Lewis) that Jesus was imperfect and that the Scripture is erroneous. “If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons.” (Sparks, “After Inerrancy, Evangelicals and the Bible in the Postmodern Age, part 4” Biologos Forum, 26 June 2010.) While Waltke himself never uttered these words, his silence and connection to this organization of scholars suggests complicity. Bryan stands against both of those positions.
At first glance, Gutacker looks to have a case. But, deeper reading will prove he fails to satisfy his claims. Throughout this response, he repeatedly insists that the Board’s move slams the door on ALL theistic evolutionists. That is not true (to my great disappointment.) He falters right out of the blocks. I’ll assume he means well and is confused about the matter and is not engaged in “bait and switch.” Perhaps his argument is not so airtight as he would like to imagine. Or to use his words, “apparently it is not so clear, not so unequivocal, after all.”
Finally, to the Board of Trustees: Whatever might be said about the propriety of the communication of this or the timing of the clarification, such I cannot comment on in light of my ignorance of the situation. Regardless, I wholeheartedly support your position on the historicity and divine fiat of Adam and Eve. As an alumi, this is a positive step forward for the whole Bryan community. Bryan has long stood as a true leader in Creation science ministry and instruction, and this steels that legacy. Now we have a fine, clear statement supporting the Scripture from which future generations of Bryan students will benefit. You stand with scores of wise, grave
and Godly men who pondered long at this origins question throughout history, these who arrived at the same conclusion as the Board: the drafters of the Irish Articles, the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the London Baptist Confession; theologians John Calvin, James Ussher, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Luther; scientists/instructors Ken Ham, Jonathan Safarti, Jason Lisle, Kurt Wise etc, etc, etc. Be encouraged and thank you.
Christopher Henderson graduated from Bryan College in 2001. He and his wife, Audrey, look back fondly on their time at Bryan and are nearly able to see the campus from their home here in Dayton. He earned a BA in History Education from Bryan. After graduating from Bryan, he spent five years in admissions. Shortly thereafter he fell, and remains, gravely ill. He is helping to raise up a congregation of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North American here in town in a layman’s capacity.