Mohler, Giberson, and the "Saving" of Christianity

            Karl Giberson has responded to Albert Mohler’s response to Giberson’s attack on Mohler’s honesty regarding the issue of Christianity and evolution.  In this response, we see something of extreme importance that I would like to take a moment to ponder.  First, let us see the two concluding paragraph’s from Giberson’s most recent open letter to Mohler:

*

Here is an example of what I am talking about. You and I both agree, as a simple matter of fact, that we are sinful creatures. I look within myself and see dark tumors of pride, greed, mean-spiritedness, lust. I covet the praise of all those atheists over at The Huffington Post. I suspect you can say the same thing, perhaps forgoing the praise of the atheists. On this factual matter we agree. I think we might also agree that the salvation that God has provided in Jesus empowers us to rise above those things and to not be weighted down with the terrible knowledge of just how sinful we are. We are forgiven as we embrace the saving power of Jesus. Is it not here that we find the central truth of our faith? Our sinful nature is a simple reality. G. K. Chesterton said it was the only empirically verifiable truth of Christianity. And it is certainly a clear biblical teaching. But is it not possible that we might have different ideas about how we came to have that nature? Does the saving power of Jesus vanish if sin becomes something that developed through natural history, rather than appeared all at once in the Garden of Eden? It seems to me that there is a conversation to have here, beyond simply drawing a line in the sand. Satisfactory answers to questions like these are truly “How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.”

At BioLogos we have made our peace with evolution, and it has been liberating and even faith-affirming. We encourage conversations to further that agenda and make no excuses for that. We are not destroying Christianity. We are saving it.

*

            Giberson, in his attempt to defend his position, declares that if he and Mohler can agree that they are sinners who need Jesus, Mohler should not demand that Giberson relinquish a belief in evolution in order to be considered an orthodox Christian.  Sadly, in his article, Giberson has let go of one of the foundational points that Mohler warned against when speaking of Giberson and his ilk.  Giberson and his cronies at BioLogos, for the sake of what they consider to be scientific honesty, are letting go the one, true source of authority; they are relinquishing the Scripture for science. 

            When Giberson declares that it is no big deal for a person to believe that sin entered the world somewhere other than the Garden of Eden, he is saying more than he intends.  To say that sin did not enter the world at the garden with Adam and Eve is to declare the Scripture to speak lies.  Not only does Genesis 1-3 clearly indicate that sin entered the world in the garden, but Romans 5:12-ff makes the same declaration.  The biblical argument for our need of a savior and Christ’s saving us is quite often centered on the fact that death entered the world through one man’s sin and salvation has come to men via the glorious righteousness of the Son of God (Romans 5:12, 17-19).  For Giberson to say that his denial of this teaching is no big deal is for him to declare the Scriptures to be false, untrustworthy, and practically useless for genuine knowledge of how we are to relate to God.  Thus, Giberson would then have to eventually logically land in a place that makes his own heart, logic, and imagination the ultimate source of truth about the God who has created us.  I understand that Giberson has not said this much, but his logic must inevitably lead him there as a denial of biblical authority and inerrancy will always make human reasoning, understanding, and imagination the central authority once the Scripture has been dethroned.

            For years, theological liberals have been voicing the same kinds of arguments as Giberson puts forth.  In his landmark speech, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win” (1922), Harry Emerson Fosdick also wanted to save Christianity for a modern-thinking world.  Sadly, those who reason as Fosdick and Giberson ultimately must leave behind the teaching of Scripture, undercutting its authority and replacing it with the authority of modern science, psychology, or culture.              

            Think simply about the question of original sin.  The Bible says that sin entered the human race through one man.  The Bible says that the only way to be forgiven of our sin is by God’s grace through faith in Christ.  If we relinquish our belief that sin entered the world through one man, how then can we cling to a belief that we are correct about the person and work of Christ?  In attempting to rescue Christianity from looking foolish in the eyes of some scientists, we actually undercut all trust in the word of God.  That undercutting will always lead people down dangerous paths as they deny doctrine after doctrine after doctrine for the sake of “saving” Christianity.

            Make no mistake about it, if we are willing to drop our belief in an inerrant Bible for the sake of appeasing secular science, we will lose more than the first step of ground that we give.  Once a Christian backs off of inerrancy, they will back off of Christ’s teachings, of Christ’s exclusivity, of Christ’s necessity.  We cannot give this ground without sliding into an abyss that is truly bottomless.

            I applaud Dr. Mohler for his strong stance and unwillingness to give ground regarding the BioLogos issue.  It is Mohler’s faithful tenacity that has exposed the clear, Scripture-denying liberalism that is at the heart of the BioLogos project.  These events have also shown us once again the importance of being extremely wary of anyone who would attempt to “save” the faith by jettisoning the doctrines clearly spelled out in the word of God.