By Paul Gutacker
Class of 2008
I was dismayed to read the Bryan Triangle article from February 19, which announced the decision of the Board to revise the Statement of Belief to exclude Christian evolutionists. My concern was allayed somewhat when I noticed that the Board is seeking input from faculty and students. I want to suggest that the Board also seek some input from those who have gone before us—from church history. As a Bryan alum (go Lions!) who has spent the last four years studying the Christian past, I am convinced that the Board’s position, as stated in the article, is problematic at a number of points. Allow me to explain.
The article quoted Haynes as arguing that “Christianity is very specific about many things, and this is an area where we get specific information.” To begin with, this assertion ignores the remarkably diverse ways in which many Christians throughout the tradition, including Augustine and Calvin, have understood how creation played out, and how to interpret Genesis 1-2. These men were both good Christians and good readers, and they disagreed both with Haynes and each other. Perhaps this is not such a simple area after all.
Further, 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. Those who argued to the contrary, who sought to appreciate the hermeneutical distance between the ancient authors and the present (asking questions like: what did this text mean in its own day?) were labeled anti-scripture. Can we really argue that southern evangelicals honored scripture more than their northern counterparts simply because of their literalism? Or, ought we to conclude that these Christians marched underneath the misleading banner of “perspicuity” while reading the Bible in a terribly mistaken, culturally-conditioned way?
This is not, by any means, to say that young-earth creationists are the equivalent of pro-slavery exegetes. Far from it. 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 cutting-and-pasting scripture to suit their own purposes. Evolutionists, Haynes must conclude, willfully deny the plain truth of scripture and thus undermine its authority. Nineteenth-century abolitionists, of course, were accused of the same sacrilege.
All this suggests that respect for scripture is shown not by asserting its specificity but by doing the hard work of hermeneutics. Further, it suggests that serious problems result not only when we try to remove things from the Bible—which, by the way, no Christian evolutionist is interested in doing—but also when we see the Bible as so woodenly literal that the text is always and everywhere perfectly clear to us. This leaves the text no chance to bite back—to change our minds or challenge our cultural assumptions.
What does this have to do with creationism? Simply that those who understand Gen. 1-2 as doing something other than describing, in scientific terms, how the world came into existence (for instance, author and theologian John Walton), are not denying scripture. They are, however, disagreeing with Haynes’ claim that the text gives us undeniably “specific information,” a claim that, upon reflection, does not rise out of the text itself. (Should we conclude that the text gives us very specific information on how days or plants could have existed at one point before the creation of the sun? Answers to these questions don’t rely on simple readings. In other words, it seems that the text itself is not all that interested in specificity.) It might be that Walton, by trying to understand Genesis 1-2 in terms of its author, audience, and context, is the one who is more interested in following what the text did and does actually mean. Even if one disagrees with Walton’s conclusions, she can appreciate the complexity of this task and promote careful study of scripture rather than presume clarity and specificity.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Board’s position, clarity is invoked where it does not exist. Take, for instance, their reliance on retired professor Karl Keefer’s assertion that belief in divine fiat rules out evolution. This is simply not true (see theological heavyweights B. B. Warfield, C. S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, Bruce Waltke, J. I. Packer, Francis Collins, etc., etc., etc.). Apparently it is not so clear, not so unequivocal, after all. Even more bizarrely, the Board twists itself into a knot, asserting that the Statement of Belief must be revised to be more clear, but also asserts that the Statement already clearly expresses its view. So much for clarity—these are self-contradicting claims! Either the Statement is already clear, in which case it ought to be left alone, or it isn’t clear—in that it allows a certain diversity of understandings, in which case the Board wants to go further than the founders of the college did.
It turns out that the latter is true. As presently worded, the Statement affirms traditional Christian doctrines regarding creation while allowing for diversity on the how and when. In other words, the Statement is fine as it is. All of the key doctrines that the Board desires to protect—the truth of scripture, the doctrine of creation, the unique dignity and role of humanity—are preserved in the present wording even though the present wording does not rule out evolution. How is this possible? Simply, these doctrines do not require one to disbelieve evolution. (They do contradict aspects of Darwinism. But philosophers such as Plantinga have convincingly demonstrated that Darwinism is the philosophy inconsistent with evolution, not Christianity. Conflating evolution with Darwinism is a mistake made by the likes of Richard Dawkins. Let’s not make the same error.) As is, the Statement protects Christian doctrine, but does not exclude evolutionists. This ambiguity is why the Board cannot stay with the Statement as is, and is forced to invoke Keefer as an authoritative witness—a higher authority than the Statement itself—to Bryan College’s historical position; a fascinating move, since the history could be told in a much different way.
If anything, the history of Bryan College—and the concomitant story of Christianity in the U.S.—points in the opposite direction. Let’s take a quick walk down memory lane. For the sake of brevity, 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. Instead, let’s zoom out to the broader cultural moment. In the wake of the Scopes Trial, conservatives became increasingly culturally marginalized at large. By the 1940’s, those who held to traditional positions on doctrines such as the resurrection or the virgin birth found themselves at a fork in the road. One way was the neo-evangelical path: to unite around Christian orthodoxy and the Gospel while seeking to apply the Christian faith to all of life. The second way was the fundamentalist path: to continue to split away from other Christians who differed on any theological issue or minor point of doctrine.
That first path has born fruit in transformative mission in the U.S. and around the world—including forces for good like World Vision, IJM, and Samaritan’s Purse, as well as cultivated theological and scholarly depth; in short, the neo-evangelical direction had a significant cultural impact while remaining faithful, at its core, to traditional evangelical Christianity. Notably, many evangelicals have held to young-earth creationism without making their stance requisite for orthodoxy. What fruit has the second path produced? Rampant sectarianism, anti-intellectualism, and debilitating legalism. The great irony of later fundamentalism is that, under the guise of honoring scripture, it actually destroyed and dishonored—to an unprecedented extent—one of scripture’s most precious doctrines: the unity of the Church, Christ’s Body.
It is this alum’s argument that Bryan College was not only founded on the former path—vibrant evangelicalism committed to Christian doctrine and cultural transformation—but also that, over the course of its wonderful, fruitful existence, it has been at its best when it sought to be evangelical rather than fundamentalist. Evangelical unity, which maintains core issues while allowing diversity, is the historical ethos and the legacy of the college.
At the present moment, this great legacy is in danger of being left behind. To revise the Statement of Belief, and raise one Christian understanding of origins up to the same level as the resurrection and the atonement, is a move away from the best of Bryan’s legacy. Let me be more blunt: this revision is a devolution towards fundamentalism. To believe in young-earth creationism is not to be a fundamentalist; to exclude those who believe differently is. This move is defensive and fearful. It is not historically or theologically or hermeneutically warranted. But, you might say, what of the inevitable warnings of “slippery slope!” and “abandoning the clear teaching of scripture!”? These cries ring hollow in light of the thoughtful, careful reflections of hundreds of thoroughly orthodox, robustly evangelical scholars and pastors who acknowledge evolution and maintain their strong faith.
I’m sure that the Board is sincere when it says that it wants to go about this in the right way. Here’s what the right way looks like: revise the timetable for changing the Statement of Belief. Prudence alone dictates that a modification of the core document of the college should not be made hastily. When it comes to defining boundaries, to deciding who is out, great care and caution are essential. Under a revised timetable, those involved in the decision should familiarize themselves with the evangelical landscape on this issue. Wisdom should be sought by exploring the range of understandings within the historic Christian tradition, by considering the models of other non-denominational evangelical colleges (such as Wheaton and Biola), and by presenting the best philosophical and biblical arguments from the other side of the issue (such as those of Plantinga and Walton, or the recent visitors from the Colossian Forum, such as Iain Provan).
Ultimately, Bryan College should maintain a position that affirms traditional Christian doctrines and maintains an evangelical view of scripture while allowing diversity on scientific stances not inconsistent with the former. To do otherwise is to make a grave mistake. To do otherwise would be to sever Bryan from some of the greatest saints of the past and to exclude from Bryan many of the brightest evangelical minds of the future.
Paul Gutacker graduated from Bryan College in 2008. He and his wife, Paige, look back fondly on their time “’neath the Red and Gold” from their home in Vancouver, British Columbia. In 2013 he graduated from Regent College with a Master of Arts in Theological Studies, with a concentration in Church History. In May 2014 he will be awarded a Master of Theology. He intends to pursue doctoral studies in the history of American religion.