Clarion and Young-Earth Creationism

Clarion, “The Canadian Reformed Magazine,” has apparently chosen for young-earth creationism. Although for years it had published work on both old- and young-earth creationism, in recent months the magazine has refused publication of old-earth articles and devoted itself single-mindedly to attacks on both old-earth creationism and theistic evolution. It began with an article by five Canadian Reformed pastors in the issue of 1 January 2010, entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil.” In addition, four editorials were published in the space of a few months, all of them rejecting theistic evolution and/or old-earth creationism. Since the attacks were obviously directed against Reformed Academic, we posted a series of answers to the “Ten Reasons.” Subsequently we submitted a more general response to Clarion, but the editorial committee, in accordance with its recently adopted policy, vetoed publication. We therefore now post it on the blog. (See “Collected Papers” in the sidebar for J. van der Meer et al. (2010) “Reformed Academic Responds to ‘Ten Reasons’”; direct link here.)

We do this in an attempt not only to respond to erroneous accusations at our address, but also to calm the waters. A good deal of alarm has recently been raised both at home and abroad about the dire threats posed to the CanRC by theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists. We consider that alarmism unnecessary and regrettable, but realize how it could happen. While leading Reformed theologians have in the past generally accepted old-earth creationism as worthy of defence, and while even the possibility of some sort of theistic evolution appears to have been considered without raising alarm (let alone censorship), times have changed. During the past few decades scientific creationism, an American import, has slain its millions. (On this topic see the essay “Young-Earth Creationism: A History” on this blog, posted on 27 June 2009.)

This scientific creationism spread from North America to other areas, including the Netherlands. There, however, the much older Reformed (or “continental”) tradition on the issue survived. That tradition had of course been inherited by the Canadian Reformed Churches. In the past it was not uncommon for Canadian Reformed professors of theology to admit that they had no problems with old-earth creationism, and as mentioned, Clarion was allowed to write about it as well. Lately, however, American-evangelical influences have been growing among us, and by now it looks as if that position is to replace Reformed-continentalism. Not only Clarion, but the magazine Reformed Perspective also promotes it as the only biblical position, most schools, as well as the Theological College, appear to teach it, and neither pastors nor teachers publicly admit to a different position, no matter what their private opinion.

In short, the Canadian Reformed community is in this respect in tune with what is often called the fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism. As such they differ not only from the Reformed churches in the Netherlands but also from orthodox Presbyterianism in North America – both PCA and OPC. In these churches the issues, although considered sensitive, are openly discussed. We regret that this is no longer possible in the CanRC. In fact, it was this development – and specifically the censorship instituted by Clarion – that led to the establishment of Reformed Academic. In view of the measures taken by the powers that be, our work will have to continue.

Answers to the question why we believe we must address the question of the history of the earth and of life have been given in various entries on our blog. For the benefit of our readers, we will recapitulate them here:

1. We ask for a restoration of a balance in this area that was only recently disturbed. That is, we ask for the freedom of interpretation in the matter of Genesis 1 that has existed in the Reformed churches for well over a 100 years, and that had in both the Netherlands and Canada given little rise to controversy until the inrush and acceptance of American young-earth creationism. The traditional position implied the defence of old-earth creationism, as well as the idea of a regional Flood, the questioning of flood geology, and related issues.

2. We ask for an honest discussion of the effects scientific findings may have (and in the past indeed have had) on biblical exegesis. As one example out of several, we ask the reader to remember the acceptance of the Copernican-Galilean theory of a moving earth. While we realize the difficulties evolutionary theory raises for the understanding of Genesis 1, we are convinced that ostrich policies won’t help, just as they did not help in the past. They tend to be counter-productive. Although we have questions about evolution, we are all convinced that the matter must be discussed. The reasons why, and the manner in which, are outlined in our “Response to ‘Ten Reasons’” (Reformed Academic, 1-6 April 2010) and in other posts on our blog.

3. We ask for an awareness of the predicament in which the official proclamation of scientific creationism as the only acceptable position places many believers, and especially Christian scientists and students. Whatever the theological, philosophical, and even scientific problems associated with evolution, the scientific evidence for such matters as common descent is strong. Teaching that this evidence must be ignored, and even that it is spurious (inspired by the devil, as some believe) is not convincing.

4. We ask that our churches cease distancing themselves from the orthodox Reformed ecumene by their association with evangelical fundamentalism. In this respect we draw attention to the need to engage our culture and to stop raising stumbling stones for outsiders. A literalistic hermeneutic constitutes such a stumbling block. Realizing this, an increasing number of orthodox Christians (theologians and others) who take their cultural and evangelistic tasks seriously have, even in “creationist” America, publicly declared to have accepted either old-earth creationism or theistic evolution. We do not ask our churches to follow the latter example. We do, however, believe that it is high time to devote a serious discussion to the issue. To forbid such a discussion, as is presently done in our churches, and to present an interpretation of Genesis 1 that differs from the young-earth creationist one as unbiblical, is erroneous and dangerous.

We invite your careful reading of, and comments upon, our concluding response to “Ten Reasons” (direct link here).

Response to “Ten Reasons” – 10

This is a continuation of our response to an article entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil” published in Clarion in January. See this introductory response for the context and our approach. In the interest of clarity, and to avoid further unnecessary polarization, we presented these responses in advance to the authors of “Ten Reasons” to provide an opportunity to identify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation. No response was received.

Original from Clarion [numbered for our responses below]

Evolution falls outside the tent of the Reformed confessions

One of the great things about the Three Forms of Unity (TFU) is that they provide a big roomy tent under which Reformed confessors can discuss, even argue, theological points. For example, TFU subscribers can either believe there is such a thing as a covenant of works or that there is not, and have the room under the tent to discuss it. TFU subscribers can hold to either the Puritan or the Calvinian view of the application of the fourth commandment and have room to discuss their differences. This, alone, makes the TFU superior to some other Reformed confessions, which insist–to use the aforesaid examples–that one hold to the covenant of works doctrine and the Puritan understanding of the fourth commandment. The TFU get it right. They exclude Roman Catholic, Anabaptist and Arminian heresies and errors, but do not push fellow Reformed confessors out into the cold and rain. But what about “theistic evolution”? Can that discussion take place under the big tent?

Someone who holds to a teaching of evolution, “theistic” or other, has brought the discussion outside the tent.[37] By way of our confessions, we say that we believe scripture to teach that Adam was a direct creation of God; we reject that Adam had human and/or animal ancestors.[38]

One example from each confession should suffice to demonstrate the truth of this:[39]

• Article 14 of the Belgic Confession says, “…God created man of dust from the ground and He made and formed him after His own image and likeness….”
• Lord’s Day 3, referring to “our first parents, Adam and Eve,” says that “God created man good and in His image.”
• Canons of Dort, III/IV, I says, “In the beginning man was created in the image of God.”

Whether or not we have animal ancestry is not an intramural discussion. (GVP)

Responses by Reformed Academic

37. Many who have been gifted and called to study and serve in the field of biology (or even geology or astronomy), and who are fully committed to the Reformed faith, have difficulty discussing openly in the church community what they are discovering about the way the world is. These brothers and sisters raise challenging questions, but they can be encouraged that there are also answers being given within the broader community of the Reformed faith by those who give careful attention to the interpretation of Scripture and of the scientific evidence. Suggesting instead that entertaining any support for the biological theory of evolution puts them outside of the Reformed community is not serving them, or Christ, well.

38. This argument assumes that God-directed evolution excludes the direct creation of Adam by God. But God-directed evolution does not exclude the direct creation of Adam, because everything that happens is under God’s direct control. Therefore, theistic evolution is not outside the boundaries of the TFU.

39. We at Reformed Academic all affirm all of these points.

Response to “Ten Reasons” – 9

This is a continuation of our response to an article entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil” published in Clarion in January. See this introductory response for the context and our approach. In the interest of clarity, and to avoid further unnecessary polarization, we presented these responses in advance to the authors of “Ten Reasons” to provide an opportunity to identify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation. No response was received.

Original from Clarion [numbered for our responses below]

Evolution is incompatible with the biblical doctrine of marriage and family

According to Scripture (Gen 2:18-23), God created a wife for Adam and then officiated at the first wedding ceremony. The Bible teaches that marriage and family have their origin with God’s creation in Genesis. Evolutionary theory[33] teaches, however, that marriage and family are social conventions that developed among evolving animals. This theory would suggest that family and marriage relationships are not written in stone, and therefore we can expect them to continue to evolve. It is not a significant step from accepting evolutionary dogma to embracing the validity of homosexual relationships, polygamy, or even bestiality. If there is no essential difference[34] between man and the animals, then man may certainly behave like an animal. The Bible teaches one thing and evolution[35] something completely different – this is the antithesis established between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. If we are to maintain the Biblical doctrine of marriage and family, we do well to see evolution[36] for what it is: an attack on the truth of God’s Word. (WB)

Responses by Reformed Academic

33. It is true that the biological theory of evolution has been used to account for social, moral, and religious behaviour. However, both Christians and non-Christians have shown that such use does not follow from that theory; instead, it is the teaching of evolutionism. We certainly do not hold the views attributed to philosophical evolutionists in this section. There is a revival of the so-called “nature-nurture” debates of the past. Materialists reduce social behavior including marriage and religiosity to phenomena determined by biological causes. Others, claiming to be anti-reductionists, reduce the same to socio-cultural factors. There are some, including Christians, who try to acknowledge the biological as well as the social and the religious aspects of, say, marriage. In these fields there is a crying need to develop a Christian interpretation of the biological facts. It is difficult to separate theory and ideology in this case, and this calls for careful thought. Dr. Jitse van der Meer has contributed to this Christian perspective by arguing that materialism shapes sociobiological theory in his article, “The engagement of religion and biology: A case study in the mediating role of metaphor in the sociobiology of Lumsden & Wilson”, Biology and Philosophy v. 15 (2000) pp. 669-698.

34. The biological theory of evolution does not make any ontological claims regarding the status of human vis-à-vis animals. Evolutionism indeed claims there is no essential difference. Christians, including us, certainly affirm the uniqueness of humanity (see previous remark).

35. Evolutionism, not evolution.

36. Evolutionism, not evolution.