Calvin Smith of AiG has BioLogos in his Crosshairs (Part 3 of my look of his recent attack on BioLogos…with Steve Martin and Derek Zoolander making a guest appearance!)

Here in my last post about Calvin Smith’s (of Answers in Genesis) two-part series on the “heretical” BioLogos, I want to focus on the last part of his second article, where he takes specific aim at Peter Enns, Denis Lamoureux, Karl Giberson, Kenton Sparks, and Joseph Bankard. I’ve read quite a bit of Enns and Giberson, but not much of the others. In any case, I think Smith’s attack on what these men have written says quite a lot about the mindset of AiG. But in addition, in the interest of open and honest discussion, I want to share some of my own critiques of what these men have written. First, though, let’s see what Calvin Smith has to say about each one, with no commentary from me.

Peter Enns
Smith highlights four quotes from Enns’ books, The Evolution of Adam, The Sin of Certainty, and a BioLogos article. The gist of all of them can be seen in this one quote: “Still, as I see it, the scientific evidence we have for human origins and the literary evidence we have for the nature of ancient stories of origins are so overwhelmingly persuasive that belief in a first human, such as Paul understood him, is not a viable option.”

Essentially, Enns says numerous times that science and evolution have proven that the Bible’s teaching that Adam and Eve were historical figures specially created by God is wrong. Because of this, Smith concludes that Enns is admitting that what he’s teaching goes against the Bible. Therefore, by his own admission, Enns is “a false teacher who should be avoided in the Christian church.”

Dennis Lamoureux
Smith declares that Enns is not alone in his apostasy. Dennis Lamoureux is just as guilty. Consider this quote: “The greatest problem with evolutionary creation is that it rejects the traditional literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Scripture.” Lamoureux goes on to say that the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself “refer to Genesis 1-11 as literal history.” Therefore, since that’s not true, Lamoureux asks how evolutionary creationists should interpret Genesis 1-11. Thus, for saying that Jesus was wrong about something, Smith argues that Lamoureux, like Enns, is a false teacher.

Karl Giberson
And then there is Karl Giberson, who was one of the founding members of BioLogos and who co-wrote a book with Francis Collins. Smith quotes him as saying the following. Smith gives four quotes from Giberson. Giberson argues, since “Genetic evidence has made it clear that Adam and Eve cannot have been historical figures, at least as described in the Bible,” that we can no longer say that death was God’s punishment for sin. Death, Giberson states, “is a necessary aspect of an evolutionary world.” Instead, Giberson points out that many Jewish thinkers understood the figure of Adam to be the story of Everyman—basically a description of human beings. Like with Enns and Lamoureux, though, Smith pronounces judgment on Giberson as well…another BioLogos false teacher.

Kenton Sparks
As for Kenton Sparks. I’ll cut to the chase: Smith finds him to be a false teacher because Sparks wrote, “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.”

Along with that, Smith quotes Sparks talking about how Genesis is not a “guide for our modern scientific queries,” that we shouldn’t “expect it to enter into modern scientific conversation,” and how that means we need to wrestle with the apparent problem of how death entered the cosmos before human beings and how the “Adam” in Genesis (and Romans) need to be understood “in light of theological orthodoxy and the evolutionary process.”

Joseph Bankard
Last, but not least, we have Joseph Bankard. Smith notes that BioLogos prefaced Bankard’s article by saying it was part of a series in which they were trying to understand the atonement in like of evolutionary science, and that even if one didn’t agree with Bankard, they hoped his article would get people to “think more deeply about how to integrate science and Scripture in a faithful way.” Smith then highlights two quotes from Bankard’s article, the two main points that he takes issue with is that Bankard says, (1) that God didn’t send Jesus to die and that He didn’t require Jesus’ death in order to forgive sins, and therefore (2) Bankard’s proposed view doesn’t require a historical Adam and Eve or a traditional concept of original sin, thus “making it more compatible with evolution.”

Smith’s response? Bankard is a heretic and false teacher.

Smith’s Grand Conclusion
Smith then brings his article to a close by issuing his verdict: BioLogos’ teaching has little to do with Christianity, and “everything to do with a naturalistic, pagan, and secular view of life.” Therefore, they are guilty of false teaching and heresy…and therefore, “The Christian community should distance itself from BioLogos. Supporters, contributors, and any true believers in Christ associated with the BioLogos organization should repent and disassociate themselves and denounce the heretical views espoused by this group.” Remember, Smith says, “Satan is cunning. He understands that a ‘Christian’ organization is often much more effective at indoctrinating believers towards faith-destroying beliefs than atheists are. After all, Satan has been known to quote Scripture—albeit he twists it.”

Smith’s formal conclusion (and please click on his article and read the whole thing for yourself) should have the soundtrack of Alanis Morrisette’s song “Ironic” playing in the background. It is truly amazing to read. Allow me to summarize his comments:

1. God-fearing believers can come to different conclusions about certain doctrines and mature Christians with differing view can still break bread with one another in Christian unity. Arguing over what Scripture means in context is fine. It is dangerous to just call someone a heretic or false teacher simply because that person comes to a different conclusion than you. Sometimes, sincere believers can simply be wrong.

I’m sorry, Calvin, but did you not actually READ the two articles that you just WROTE? You have LITERALLY called BioLogos a “house of heresy” full of false teachers, time and time again!

2. AiG has always been very clear that they have never considered a Christian who doesn’t hold to biblical creation (YECism) to be apostate. AiG has never suggested that they be “cast from the kingdom.”

Again, Calvin, read your own articles! You have equated BioLogos WITH SATAN and have commanded Christians to distance themselves from them.

3. AiG has never claimed that a “literal” reading of Genesis is a salvation issue. It totally understands that “those we consider to be in error concerning their interpretation of Genesis are quite different from false teaching.”

Two things: (1) Again, you have LITERALLY spent two articles calling BioLogos a “house of heresy” promoting false teaching over the issue of how some of their contributors INTERPRET GENESIS 1-11! And (2) Since Smith claims no one has been able to produce evidence that AiG has ever claimed a literal reading of Genesis is a salvation issue, let me present a quote from Ken Ham’s blog, dated January 1, 2014. After saying, “nowhere does the Bible even imply salvation in Christ is conditioned upon one’s belief concerning the days of creation or the age of the earth or universe” and “Salvation is conditional upon faith in Christ—not belief about the six days of creation or the earth’s age,” Ham then says that YECism is an issue of biblical authority and is thus a gospel issue. Therefore, “It is a salvation issue indirectly. Christians who compromise on millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief concerning God’s Word and the gospel.”

So, there you have it, it isn’t a salvation issue, per se…but it is a gospel issue…which is about salvation…so it is a salvation issue indirectly! I know AiG likes to accuse Christians who disagree with them of “speaking with the voice of the serpent,” but man, talk about speaking with a forked tongue!

4. BioLogos is a house of heresy and false teachers. Therefore, if you’re a Christian, you need to repent and distance yourself from BioLogos, because “There is no reason to put yourself at risk on judgment day as being counted as supporters of false teachings.”

But we’re not saying just having a different interpretation of Genesis 1-11 makes you a heretic, and we’re not saying BioLogos needs to be cast out! And although it is the damned who will be judged on Judgment Day, we’re not questioning the salvation of those who don’t hold to YECism!

Now, MY Conclusion…
I want to be clear. Smith’s article does not make me angry. As self-righteous as it is, I find it absurdly funny. I consider his damning of BioLogos to carry about as much weight as Navin Johnson, Steve Martin’s character in the movie The Jerk, when he condemns a pair of glasses. That’s about how authoritative AiG’s condemnation should be understood.

I simply can’t take Calvin Smith (or AiG) seriously. Yes, many Christians have been deeply wounded by AiG—I am one of them. Still, the best thing to do when confronting AiG is to try not to get upset or mad at them. Instead, simply clearly speak the truth and shed light on how absurd they are. I’d like to think my reaction to Smith’s articles does that.

That being said, Derek Zoolander has another theory as to why Ken Ham is so angry at BioLogos. Let’s listen…

Having said that, I do want to point out a couple things regarding the BioLogos contributors Smith quotes that he, in a roundabout way, actually brings up a valid point. The first thing is something I’ve long felt to be problematic in the way some have framed the issue at hand regarding evolution and the Bible. If you look over the quotes Smith shares, they often say things like, “Evolution/Genetics show that the Bible is wrong about a historical Adam.” “Paul and Jesus believed Adam was historical, but they erred.” “Evolutionary creationism rejects the traditional interpretation of Genesis.”

Honestly, when I read comments like that, it’s like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. I don’t want to sound mean, but I find comments like that to be highly problematic and ill-thought out. They highlight what I feel to be a major obstacle in the whole “how evolution relates to the Bible” debate—the one that BioLogos was created to help address. I’ll try to be as clear and straightforward as possible. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. Evolution should not impact at all how one interprets Genesis 1-11. Evolution does not relate to the Bible at all. Proper biblical interpretation and exegesis is an entirely different topic than of the science of evolution.

Therefore, when I read comments like many of the ones Smith quotes, I kind of want to scream, “No, That’s not right! That is not the right was to say it.” Now, obviously many Christians have grown up assuming that Genesis 1-11 was intending to convey real historical facts and scientific descriptions. Therefore, learning about evolution certainly does poke major holes in those assumptions about Genesis 1-11. That is true.

But it simply wrong to say things like, “Paul and Jesus clearly believed in a historical Adam,” or “The Bible presents Adam and Eve as historical figures,” or “Evolution proves that the Biblical account of creation is wrong.” I’ve said this for years: Just because a New Testament author refers to Adam and Eve (or Noah’s Flood, or the creation account), mere allusion does not mean the author is claiming historicity. To put it another way, “No, you don’t know that Paul thought Adam was a historical figure. No, you don’t know that Jesus referred to Genesis 1-11 as ‘literal history.'” You can’t know that because neither Paul nor Jesus is commenting on that point, and there is no way that you know what they thought on that point simply because they make references to things in Genesis 1-11.”

What these contributors mean to say is probably something like, “When I learned about evolution, I realized my assumptions about certain biblical passages were wrong.” That is entirely different that to project your own wrong assumptions back into the minds of the biblical writers and Jesus Himself. So please, stop saying things like that. It only gives fodder to the AiG zealots who are intent on pushing their own inquisition. And, quite frankly, those kinds of statements are just careless anyway.

This leads me to my second and final point. At one point in his condemnation of Peter Enns, Smith wrote the following: “This is further confirmation that prior to the popularity of evolution, no one would have any reason to conclude with Enns and BioLogos that Adam wasn’t a real, historical person just as Genesis and the New Testament teach. Therefore, Enns teaches contrary to the NT writers.”

Speaking for myself and my experience, I can say Smith’s comments are simply not true. I came to my understanding of Genesis 1-11 back in 1997-1998, that it was written in the genre of ancient Near Eastern myth and that it served both to (1) subvert the very ANE pagan worldview that was expressed in other ANE creation myths, and (2) set the stage for a proper understanding of God’s involvement in human history, beginning in Genesis 12 with Abraham. I came to that conclusion through extensive biblical research and exegetical work. In fact, at that time, if you would have asked me about evolution, I would have told you I didn’t buy it. The theory of evolution has absolutely no impact whatsoever on how I came to see that Genesis 1-11 was not doing science or history. Responsible biblical exegesis that takes the inspiration of Scripture seriously did.

What I’d like to see going forward (and maybe BioLogos could make a concerted effort to emphasize this as well) is this: There is absolutely no need to try to make the Scriptures compatible with evolution. The theory of evolution isn’t the reason why we should interpret Genesis 1-11 as mythological. We should understand Genesis 1-11 is in the genre of ANE because it has all the hallmarks of ANE mythological literature. And because that’s the case, that means it doesn’t conflict with anything modern science might discover about the natural world. That is a major difference than saying something like, “Evolution means Jesus, Paul, and Genesis 1-11 is wrong.”

I could say more, but I see Smith is now writing another two-part series on how BioLogos has responded to his supposed holy writ of excommunication. If I feel the urge to comment further, I will. But at this point, let me announce that the next series on my blog is going to be sort of a “beginners introduction” to early Church history and some of the early Church Fathers. So, if that sounds interesting, let me give a shameless plug: subscribe to my blog and you’ll get notifications when I post things. I think we Christians in the modern world can learn a lot from them.