Progressive Christianity and Evolution

We are still reflecting -- at least I'm still reflecting -- on the implications of Darwin's theory, and its descendants, on our theology. There are those, as can be seen in some of the comments left here and elsewhere, who reject the theory of evolution. They do so because they fear it will undermine the Bible. Their reading of the Scriptures is literal, and if Genesis 1 says it took 7 days, then it took 7 days. If the genealogies can account only for about 6,000 years, then obviously the earth is only between 6-10, 000 years old. Never mind what geology and the fossil record might suggest. That message has become so loud that only about 40% of Americans believe in Evolution. Indeed, it appears that only about 51% of Mainline Protestants (the so-called liberal churches) embrace the doctrine.

Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite, the former President of Chicago Theological Seminary, and a vocal proponent of Progressive Christianity has written an intriguing post for the On Faith blog. In it she notes the value of a Progressive Christian position and addresses the issues inherent in the debate.

It's not just about the Bible and its place in our lives, it also touches on such things as how we view government, God's sovereignty, and our place in creation. For some reason, we seem, as Americans (?), to be put off by the idea that there might be continuity between us and the rest of creation. "I'm not descended from a monkey" is a statement often heard in these debates. Actually, our closest relatives aren't monkeys, but chimps -- but that's another story.

Thistlethwaite writes:

Evolutionary biology does not exhaust all that theology has to say about human nature. That's where a Christian interpretation of the whole of human nature is a different interpretation that that of the sociobiologists, in particular, many of whom seek a wholly naturalistic explanation for human nature and behavior. But there are large and increasing areas of fruitful dialogue possible, as second and third generation evolutionary biologists nuance their own arguments.

Secularists take issue with the fact that to posit a God is to pose an "unanswerable question" and thus has no place in a reasonable world. In progressive theology, however, unanswerable questions are not regarded as barriers, but doorways for religious contemplation.

An infinite God can neither be proved nor disproved. Religion and science are, in the end, different ways of knowing. I know several scientists who acknowledge that science is a branch of philosophy; science does not need to replace other epistemologies to do its work.

Science and theology approach reality from different perspectives, but surely there is a place for dialogue -- fruitful dialogue. And if there's dialogue, then theology will have to adapt to some aspects of this conversation. And yes, it has adapted, at least more progressive forms have adapted. We no longer read the Bible, as we once did, but that doesn't mean that we don't read or receive it's message -- only that we receive it differently than before.