Bruce Waltke

[zoegirl]

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliv ... _bruc.html

T has been watching the online debate snowball over this week's resignation of renowned OT scholar Bruce Waltke from Reformed Theological Seminary. At issue: the March 24 release of a BioLogos interview in 2009 where Waltke states:

“...if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

Reformed Theological Seminary asked Waltke to have the video removed. Waltke's resignation was announced April 6.

Waltke clarified his comments in the video, specifically his belief in a historical Adam and Eve and his support for those who hold creationist views. He also issued a joint statement with BioLogos president Darrel Falk regarding the importance of this debate within higher education.

JR Daniel Kirk notes that another big OT name, Tremper Longman III, was disinvited from RTS for expressing doubt over the historicity of Adam in September 2009. Reformation21 is making allusions to the Peter Enns controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary in 2008.

Rod Dreher gives his take here, and Inside Higher Ed examines "the video that ended a career." RJS offers some reflections on Scot McKnight's blog here.

Any thoughts? It seems as if he qualified his statement with "if it is true"...

[zoegirl]

Here are parts of the original interview

http://biologos.org/blog/why-must-the-c ... an-update/

[cslewislover]

I looked at this article quick, on the barriers to acceptance of evolution, which was a survey and explanation of the survey (one that really didn't have all that much data), and my biggest barrier (regarding theology) is the "Adam as the head of the human race" (he needs to be). But it seems that not that many people care, or what I surmise, understand what this means altogether. I like that at the end of his article he stated that one can't be deist - what some Theistic Evolutionists believe - that God set things in motion and then left all alone. I don't think the guy should've been fired or forced to resign!

[zoegirl]

Absolutely, I agree there that one needs to avoid deistic thinking. It seems he did a good job clarifying his views.

[DannyM]

Zoe,

I may be having an off day, but I don't really understand what we are talking about here ... ? Sorry.

Danny

[zoegirl]

He resigned after some comments referring to evolution.

[DannyM]

Sweet. I get it now.

Waltke discusses the danger that the Church will face if it does not engage with the world around it, in particular by acknowledging the overwhelming amount of data in support of biological evolution, which many evangelicals still reject."

Who said the church isn't engaging "with the world around it"? And what does this mean exactly? Does he think the church should accept what biologos apparently accepts? If so, why? Sorry if I've steamed in head first but would rather get a discussion going by asking these questions.

[zoegirl]

I think he means the typical reaction that many Christians have to shun science and to accept without question the likes of AiG and others.

In the article, he stresses IF the data supports...

But his point is a valid one considering how many CHristians view science as the enemy (not many here, I know, just some of the ones I have worked with and those that I see on other blogs and posts).

[DannyM]

I think he means the typical reaction that many Christians have to shun science and to accept without question the likes of AiG and others.

In the article, he stresses IF the data supports...

But his point is a valid one considering how many CHristians view science as the enemy (not many here, I know, just some of the ones I have worked with and those that I see on other blogs and posts).

I guess I've never been exposed to such opposition to science, Zoe. The term 'evolution' fills some people with dread, I'm sure, when it needn't. But the church certainly does not need to engage any notion of macroevolution. Adaptation? Yeah; speciation? Nah. But what should the church 'come out and say' ? AiG to me are just in a little bubble of their own- a ludicrous outfit. But I don't see or know any Christians who oppose science.

Was Waltke made to resign? Sorry for the laziness, Zoe, but I'm running around all over the place at the moment so have taken the diabolical liberty of skipping the article's finer detail.

[zoegirl]

I have been...sadly...(not here)

[DannyM]

I have been...sadly...(not here)

Where ya been??

[zoegirl]

Churches....school (remember, it's Christian so I have a some parents who are very...skeptical...)...other websites (like vox day... )...

THis guy taught at Wheaton college....in many Christian colleges, you find mainly theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists in the science department and mainly YEC in all other departments (this would be true in my school as well) so there is a discrepancy there.

[DannyM]

Churches....school (remember, it's Christian so I have a some parents who are very...skeptical...)...other websites (like vox day... )...

THis guy taught at Wheaton college....in many Christian colleges, you find mainly theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists in the science department and mainly YEC in all other departments (this would be true in my school as well) so there is a discrepancy there.

PM me Zoe or Message me on FB and we'll team up and put this guy straight on a few things if you like; all done in a polite manner of course. It seems that some Christians are very confused.