Last month, the conservative Reformed theologian Douglas Wilson wrote a blog post entitled, “Those BioLogos Unbelievers.” I was made aware of it when someone shared it in one of the Science/Christianity Facebook groups I am in. The gist of the post was this: If you claim to believe Jesus, then you’ll believe what the Bible says. And if you believe in evolution and millions of years, then you don’t believe the Bible…which means you don’t believe Jesus—you are an unbelieving liberal who accepts and promotes the far-Left social agenda to destroy Western civilization.
I knew I had to write a response. The fact is for the past month or so I have been struggling to write a final chapter for my Worldview book, tentatively titled, Christianity and the (R)evolution of Worldviews in Western Culture. The final chapter focuses on how to deal with the current crises facing us in the 21stcentury—and it has really been some tough sledding. I know what I want to say, but I’ve been having a hard time knowing how to say it.
When I came across Wilson’s post, though, I realized that it was the kind of thing that got to the heart of virtually everything wrong I am seeing in today’s “creation-evolution, faith-versus-science, Left-versus-Right, conservative-versus-progressive” culture wars. The heart of the problem does not lie in any particular stance that people on the Left and Right tend to take in opposition to each other. The heart of the problem, rather, lies in the failure to distinguish and differentiate between areas of science, theology, politics, and social issues. For some reason, both culture warriors on the Right and social justice warriors on the Left have this odd tendency to conflate all these areas together, and the end result is toxic hyper-partisanship and a big, confusing mess.
What happens is that people have taken a wide range of views and areas of knowledge and forced them all into one of two boxes. And so, if you accept evolution, then it is automatically assumed you are a “liberal” who takes liberal positions on all major political and social issues, whereas if you reject evolution, then you must be a far-Right fundamentalist who takes far-Right positions on those same political and social issues.
That, and instead of actually engaging in discussion on the specifics of any of those topics, we’re too busy engaging in self-righteous name-calling.Wilson’s post is a prime example of this very thing.
Let’s Summarize Wilson’s Post
You can read Wilson’s post here: “Those BioLogos Unbelievers.” Allow me, though, to just summarize some of his main points:
- To be a “liberal Christian” is to be no different than an unbeliever, and no atheist ever converts to the watered-down, liberal version of Christianity.
- “Liberal Christian,” as defined by Wilson, is a Christian who doesn’t believe Genesis 1-11 is straightforward, literal history.
- If you are a “liberal Christian,” then you believe in science more than Jesus, and that means, in addition to evolution, you believe in the following: (a) climate change, (b) the policies the Democratic party has put forth to combat climate change, (c) transgenderism, and (d) sex change operations for pre-pubescent children. True Christians are science-deniers and don’t believe in those things.
- Some Christian theologians like John Stott and J.I. Packer are guilty for quietly making their peace with theistic evolution, whereas others like N.T. Wright, James K.A. Smith, Timothy Keller, and BioLogos all are disciples of Satan who are “zealous evangelists” and openly advocate for unbelief (i.e. Genesis 1-11 isn’t to be read a literal history).
- Theistic evolutionists are the ones who worship a “God of the gaps,” not Creationist-Literalists like him. Not only that, but groups like BioLogos have no explanation for natural evil and they are eroding belief in the Fall.
- People who call themselves “red-letter Christians” are really are just in the first stages of what will eventually become unbelief. Besides, they really aren’t “red-letter Christians” anyway, because in those “red letters” Jesus spoke about the “black letters” (i.e. everything else in the Bible) and spoke about the historicity of Genesis 1-11. And when “red-letter Christians” try to explain away what Jesus said by talking about things like original context and the customs and assumptions of the time, what they are really trying to do is make Jesus into an unbeliever.
- If you don’t believe Genesis 1-11 is literal history,then you really should just admit that you are ashamed of the words of Jesus and realize that he will be ashamed of you when he returns! So why don’t you just join some other religion to doubt and denigrate? As Wilson says, “Love it or leave it!”
So, there you have it: according to Douglas Wilson, your stance on Genesis 1-11 and evolution determines everything—your political leanings, your views on social issues, and yes, even your eternal destiny. Bottom line, if you don’t think Genesis 1-11 is literal history, then you’re not a believer in Jesus. You’re a believer in Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Lena Dunham, and Bruce/CaitlynJenner all rolled into one. Because of that, Jesus will be ashamed of you when he returns…and he will send you to a place were you really will feel some climate change!
Absurdity Among the Hollow Men
There are two basic things that bother me about Wilson’s rant. First, I found his entire argument to be an illogical, ill-informed, confusing mess in which he conflated completely different things as being related. Let’s be clear, if you are convinced evolutionary theory is true, that doesn’t mean you are ashamed of the Bible, or that you deny climate change, or that you accept queer theory, or that you are all for sex re-assignment surgery for pre-pubescent children. One’s opinion regarding evolution or the genre of Genesis 1-11 is not a politically-motivated thing. It doesn’t automatically make you “a liberal.” That kind of thinking is utterly absurd.
Secondly, though, as absurd as Wilson’s views are, it is quite unsettling to me that more and more people, both on the political Left and the political Right, actually share his views. I honestly do not get how belief that evolution is true gets linked to progressive, liberal Democrat stances on controversial social issues, and disbelief in evolution is linked to conservative Evangelical and Republican stances on those same issues. To quote Mugatu from Zoolander, “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.” Just imagine how absurd it would be if we attached all our current cultural and political controversies, and fidelity to Christianity itself, to let’s say, the Theory of Relativity, and heard people actually make thefollowing comments:
- “If you believe in the Theory of Relativity, you clearly don’t believe in Jesus, because Jesus clearly said some things were really sinful! There’s nothing morally relative about adultery, or gay marriage, or transgenderism, or Democrats who want to have tax-payers pay for sex re-assignment surgery for prison inmates!”
- “Of course I believe in the Theory of Relativity! Jesus was just a first century Jew, we can’t expect him to understand Einstein’s theory, so we have to see that when he said, ‘God made them male and female,’ he clearly didn’t understand gender-fluidity!”
Do I need to spell out the absurdity of both of those statements? Yet this is what far too many people do with the theory of evolution, the Christian faith, modern day politics, and current cultural issues: they throw them into the same blender and hit the “liquify” button. And yet, this is precisely the kind of nonsense far too many people have gotten caught up in, both liberals and conservatives, progressives and Evangelicals.
This is a problem. And this is why, even though I desperately want to say that Wilson is setting up a liberal “straw man” as the focus of his attack, I simply can’t, for I simply know too many “liberals” (not all, but many) who hold the exact positions that Wilson is criticizing as being “liberal.” And even though I want to tell some of my liberal friends that they are setting up a “conservative Evangelical straw man” in many of their attacks, the fact is those “straw men” look a lot like Wilson, and I know many Evangelicals who actually hold to Wilson’s views.
Sadly, I’m finding that these straw men are actually becoming a depiction of modern reality. It seems that more and more people’s heads are being, as the famous T.S. Eliot poem The Hollow Men states, “filled with straw”:
We are the hollow men/We are the stuffed men
Leaning together/Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when we whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless/As wind in dry grass
or rats’ feet over broken glass/In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
This, I submit, is an accurate description of the state of so much in our current culture: the bluster and belligerence of so much in modern discourse (Wilson’s post being a prime example) is nothing more than dried voices coming from hollowed out scarecrows of humanity with heads filled with straw, spouting muddle-headed logic that fails to distinguish between science, theology, politics, and social issues.
Consequently, the biggest threat to the Christian faith and Western culture as a whole isn’t any specific conservative or liberal view. The biggest threat is that both views are coming from “stuffed men, leaning together, headpiece filled with straw.” Arguments made from straw-filled heads are bound to either disappear in the whirlwind or burn up in the fire.
So Here’s My Take on Wilson’s Claims
With all that said, let’s think through just some of Wilson’s claims.
- Wilson’s definition of “liberal Christian”is misleading. Typically, “liberal Christianity” is associated with denying a historical resurrection, the historicity of ancient Israel, or the reality of miracles, or with endorsing the more “liberal” stances on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, or LGBTQ rights. How one understands the scientific evidence for evolution or the ancient genre of Genesis 1-11 are entirely different issues that should not be automatically linked to modern social/political issues. The Bible itself, as well as the early Church Fathers, are quite clear: the historical resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of the Christian faith—not how one may or may not interpret Genesis 1-11. And if not believing Genesis 1-11 is history makes you a “liberal” no different than an unbeliever, then a whole lot of early Church Fathers are in big trouble.
- Wilson’s understanding of faith is simply wrong. Wilson’s post makes it is quite clear that he views Christian faith and belief as little more than mental acquiescence that everything in the Bible (particularly Genesis 1-11) is conveying historical facts. I’m sorry, that’s not biblical faith. Faith is putting your trust in the living God and being faithful to Christ. It is relational and Spirit-filled. Wilson’s “definition” of faith amounts to, “You’d better say a literal six days, or else you’re going to hell!”
- Wilson’s conflation of social issues with evolution is wrong. Without going into detail, let me just say that my acceptance of evolutionary theory has nothing to do with my stances on issues like climate change, gay marriage, transgenderism, or abortion. (A) I believe we should all try to keep the planet as clean as possible, but I don’t see how the Democrat solution to tax everyone to death helps combat climate change. (B) The state issues marriage certificates and has attached numerous tax and financial benefits to it, and it has the right to allow homosexuals to marry. It does not have the right to punish churches or Christian organizations who don’t agree. A state marriage is not the same as a Christian marriage. (C) LGBTQ issues? Everyone should be afforded the same civil rights as everyone else. Still, there is no scientific evidence that Bruce Jenner is a woman trapped in a man’s body, and it is not oppression to categorize people according to their DNA, as opposed to their own feelings. (D) Sex-change operations on pre-pubescent children is horrible and amounts to child abuse. In my opinion, a lot of the chic and novel social experiments going on at this time are going to prove very harmful in the long run.
So…do I have typical “liberal” views on social issues? I don’t think so…and yet, I am convinced evolution is true. Strange how that is.
As for the rest of Wilson’s rant, it isn’t much different from the talking points of Ken Ham. The only real difference is that Wilson is much more in your face and belligerent (i.e. “If you don’t believe Genesis 1-11 is history, you’re not a believer! Go find another religion to denigrate!”), whereas Ken Ham chooses to engage in more double-speak (i.e. “I’m not saying you’re not a Christian, but you are encouraging unbelief”).
Here’s the bottom line: let’s stop engaging in the kind of oversimplistic and lazy argumentation that Wilson and so many others routinely display. Let’s stop taking complicated issues like evolution, or Christian theology and biblical interpretation, or politics, or cultural challenges and conflating them all into a dumbed-down tweet or talking point. Such argumentation makes everyone dumber and angrier.
Real human beings do not engage in this sort of thing. What Wilson displays here, as do what many talking heads on the “Left” also display, isn’t reasoned argument by rational human beings made in God’s image. Rather, it is the philosophy of scarecrows and hollow men—no eyes, no vision, but only windy belches in this hollow valley and broken jaw of our lost kingdoms.
This will be the way the world ends…not with a bang, but a whimper.
Most excellent article. It amazes me how educated christians defy logic and reality. i live in an area with many reformed protestants and i have come to learn for a good number they are “closset” believers in evolution.
Excellent excellent excellent!! It would be an interesting study to identify all of the logical fallacies groups on the right and the left use to vilify and denigrate those who disagree with them. I look forward to reading your new book. (BTW, I’m reading The Lost World of Genesis One now, and it is fantastic!)
Echoing the comments above as well.
That said, I’ve never even heard of this guy until today.
Thankyou Joel, I really do enjoy reading your posts, they provide me with comfort. But I am a member of the converted. I think you made one error in judgement if your hope is to show this piece as an evenhanded approach that evangelicals might read and be caused to reconsider some of their thinking. That is when you characterized Wilson’s piece as a rant, “There are two basic things that bother me about Wilson’s rant.” You are probably right, His piece probably is a rant, but a person reading your response who believes Wilson is spot on, will be lost and distracted the moment they hit that sentence, If it is you goal that those on the right might read and consider your response in it’s entirety, then you will need to be as graceful and evenhanded for the entirety of your writing as you were clearly trying to be for most of this piece. This one and it is only one error hits hard enough so as to let any evangelical fish you might have caught off the hook, just as you were about to land them.
Please keep up the good work, and please take this not as criticism, but as the encouragement of a fellow believer who wants you to succeed.
That’s a good point, and after reading a few of Wilson’s posts, he is fairly aggressive in his language, but also a fan of rather biting satire.
I would agree with this to be careful how you label Wilson. Many young millennials really admire him for some of his less theological satirical writings. Or admire his son’s writing and think he and his son are on the same page. Unless you think he is redeemable and are trying to get him to react to you and engage with you; or you think he is far off the rails that you need to actually warn people about him….
Sadly, Joel, the issue is not just conflating old earth as liberal, but also reformed teaching in general. We have an older widow in our somewhat reformed (not full 1689, that can be just as bad as the fundamentalists) Baptist Church who listens to radio preachers all day and is thinking she can’t trust our Pastor’s preaching because he is a gasp Calvinist.
The problem is that creationists manufactured this argument over a hundred years ago – and then as later generations were born they just grew up with this “fact” embedded in their worldview as part of their upbringing: “Evolution is an atheist conspiracy against Christian belief.” Over a hundred years ago – just as it is today – this was merely a rhetorical smear tactic (a common fallacy of appealing to prejudice). It was easy to attack evolution by “tarring” it as atheistic and using this as a smear to persuade other religious believers to reject it because they already rejected atheism.
Of course, religious rhetoric in general is permeated with the usage of such basic fallacies as this one, so this particular argument was nothing out of the ordinary. These days, another form of this same argument, is that professional science journals don’t publish any creationist research because they’re all part of the worldwide evolutionist/atheist conspiracy against creationism.
The fact of the matter – the obvious fact of the matter – is that biological evolution is simply one of the facts of science, with reams of evidence in biology and paleontology. This is utterly regardless of anything having to do with one’s political stance, whether libertarian, conservative, liberal, or anything else. Those of us who accept the discoveries of science regardless of any precepts of religious dogma are to be found all across the political spectrum. Cries of “liberal” among creationists is just another example of the fact that creationists don’t know how to understand basic logic, because such rhetorical smear tactics are clear and obvious fallacies.
Moreover, and finally, *if your religious belief requires you to reject knowledge about reality merely because what we’ve learned about reality is contradicted by your religious belief, then this just proves that your religious beliefs are both false and corrupt*. But this certainly is not the first time that a contingent of religious believers promoting false religious beliefs has relied on the common fallacy of circular argument.
“Moses told the Israelites that the Lord had said: The Sabbath belongs to me. Now I command you and your descendants to always obey the laws of the Sabbath. By doing this, you will know that I have chosen you as my own. Keep the Sabbath holy. You have six days to do your work, but the Sabbath is mine, and it must remain a day of rest. If you work on the Sabbath, you will no longer be part of my people, and you will be put to death. Every generation of Israelites must respect the Sabbath. This day will always serve as a reminder, both to me and to the Israelites, that I made the heavens and the earth in six days, then on the seventh day I rested and relaxed.” (Exodus 31)
Yep, I can see how one could read evolution and deep time into this passage. But I can’t see how to get around the death penalty thing. Maybe it just wasn’t important to the Israelites and abrogated it. I could be wrong but ya got any suggestions?
Well, I wouldn’t say we can “read evolution into” a text like Exodus 31. I think it is better to just acknowledge that texts like Exodus 31 aren’t trying to do science or the “history of the creation of the earth” in the first place. It is encouraging the Israelites to rest once a week as testimony to the fact that their God, YHWH, is king of the universe and rules…therefore, they can rest, knowing he’s in charge.
The death penalty thing–yes, sounds harsh. But scholars have speculated on the fuller context. A bit too much to lay out here, but we should probably just admit that from our perspective, it does seem harsh.