I’m down with the flu today (it’s Labor Day as I begin to write this post), so I wasn’t able to do any yard work like I intended. Instead, I listened to three more ASA meeting talks from a session that I did not actually attend. I regret that I never got around to introducing myself to Carol Hill; I’ve enjoyed several of her articles in PSCF, especially Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis (see also follow-up letters one and two). I did meet Paul Seely at the meeting, and already knew Denis Lamoureux (see previous post).
Anyway, this was an very interesting session because all three talks represent the Evolutionary Creationist (EC) perspective (i.e., full acceptance of evidence for cosmological, geological and biological evolution including humans), and all three presenters recognize that the only reasonable way to make sense of the Genesis texts is to accept that the Ancients really had a different understanding of the structure and operation of the physical world. In other words, all three accept the principle of accommodation (vs. concordism) as the proper method for interpreting Scripture; yet each one takes this view in a slightly different direction.
Here are the audio links and my comments (or see menu page for all conference talks):
Paul H. Seely, “Does the Bible Use Phenomenal Language?” (no Slides).
The audio isn’t that good; there’s a lot of popping throughout, especially near the beginning.
Seely shows how Calvin and others reconciled Scripture with science by appealing to phenomenal (also called phenomenological) language, i.e., the notion that Scripture “concords” with science because it was written as the way things appear (sun rises, etc.) and did not claim that those appearances are real. Seely asserts that this method of reconciling Scripture and science is not valid because the ancient writers really did think that the appearances were accurate descriptions of the world.
You might suppose that he [Charles Hodge] meant an accommodation to the scientific beliefs of the times. But a close look at Hodge’s work indicates that he was say that the solid sky mentioned in Genesis was an accommodation to the sky’s appearance. The interesting thing about Hodge’s idea that the solid firmament in Genesis 1 is phenomenal language is that it violates Hodge’s own first rule of interpretation – namely, that words mean what they meant to the people of that time. [But] people in the time of the OT believed the sky was really solid. When they spoke of the solid sky, they meant it literally.
Does the bible EVER use phenomenal language? I do not think so. The reason people in bible times thought of the sky as solid and the sun as literally moving, is because the sky looks solid (especially at night) and the sun looks like it is literally moving. They accepted the appearance as the reality.
We can use phenomenal language today with respect to the sky’s appearance and the sun’s apparent motion because we know in fact that the reality is not as it appears. They ancients did not have this privilege with respect to these matters.
Carol A. Hill, “The Worldview Approach to Biblical Interpretation and Origins: What It Is and How It Differs from Accommodation” (Slides).
Her slides are really very good. If you favor a method that preserves a historical Adam, this one’s for you. I’m not entirely convinced about that myself, but am giving her perspective much more serious consideration than I had in the past (somehow I had missed this point when I read her papers on the subject). Her objections to the full-blown version of accommodation may be more a matter of semantics (what you understand the word “accommodation” to actually mean with respect to process of inspiration.
Nevertheless, her presentation helps to emphasize that God’s revelation is based as much (if not primarily) on his incarnation and interaction with humankind as events in history as it is on his delivering an accommodated (i.e., “dumbed-down”) message to the writers of Scripture. Hill’s main point is that the interaction is experienced by us as real events; then, in documenting our experiences with God, we are the ones who accommodate the events to our current understanding. I think that’s correct; I’m just not sure it follows that Adam must have been an actual person.
Denis O. Lamoureux, “The Sin-Death Problem: Toward an Evolutionary Creationist Solution” (Slides).
Apparently there were problems with the projector at the beginning, so it takes a couple of minutes to get going. Also the original deck of slides on the ASA site is not complete (only the first screen of each multi-part slide got distilled to the PDF). I made a new PDF from Denis’s original slides, so that’s why my ‘Slides’ link doesn’t go to the ASA site.
Lamoureux’s talk is not a complete argument; you’ll have to read one of his books or articles for that. This talk is just a quick “answer” to those who wonder how he can take such an unconventional view (no Adam or Fall) while still holding to a very conventional theology of the Gospel. You can also see my interview with him.
As it relates to accommodation, Lamoureux was dealing with Romans 5 and 8, which are the key sticking points for people (including Carol Hill) concerned with preserving a historical Adam. Denis wants us to recognize that, just like the ancient writers of Genesis and the OT, the apostle Paul and NT writers had no choice but to accommodate their experiences and divine-inspired doctrinal insights to their worldview. They had to give their testimony and explain their beliefs using their conceptual understanding of what is real about both the structure and function of the cosmos and the story of God’s people (history). Paul wrote about Adam as a real person because he certainly believed that Adam was a historical person. Denis’ point is that we are not compelled to do likewise; the Message-Incident Principle allows us to preserve a high view of inerrancy without requiring us to conform to Paul’s incidental context.
As Paul Seely said in his talk, Scripture is “inerrant for the purpose for which it was written.”
times.But a close look at Hodge’s work indicates that he was say that the solid sky mentioned in
Genesis was an accommodation to the sky’s APPEARANCE. The interesting thing about Hodge’s idea that
the solid firmament in Genesis 1 is phenomenal language is that it violates Hodge’s own first rule of
interpretation – namely, that words mean what they meant to the people of THAT time. [But] people in
the time of the OT believed the sky was REALLY solid. When they spoke of the solid sky, they meant it
literally.
Does the bible EVER use phenomenal language? I do not think so. The reason people in bible times
thought of the sky as solid and the sun as literally moving, is because the sky looks solid
(especially at night) and the sun looks like it is literally moving. They accepted the APPEARANCE as
the REALITY.
We can use phenomenal language today with respect to the sky’s appearance and the sun’s apparent
motion because we know in fact that the reality is not as it appears. They ancients did not have this
privelege with respect to these matters.
I am a pediatrician and am enjoying your website. As a fellow member of the AMA I like your approach. I do think it dangerous for us however to view Adam as someone whom Paul believed in but may in fact be unreal. The promise of the Abrahamic covenant begins in Genesis. The reformed view of scripture is that the New Testament interprets the Old. Jesus and the apostles practiced this hermanuetic. We need to keep Adam in the picture because the revelation of the gospel in the NT does so.
Am interested in your thoughts.
God Bless
David,
Thanks for reading and commenting about this post. Indeed, the NT interprets the OT, but it does so for the NT audience (according to the culture and worldview of the NT writer). Two thousand years later, we have no choice but to interpret the NT (even its view of the OT) for our culture and worldview. That is precisely Lamoureux’s point in saying that Paul may have believed that Adam was an actual person, but that does not compell us to do so.
Depending on your approach to inerrancy and inspiration, this may seem dangerous. In my own mind, however, it does not lead to any sort of slippery slope, such as doubting the physical resurrection of Jesus. I suggest that you read Pete Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation. And, with regard to a historical Adam, there are a variety of plausible and defensible positions between Adam as the biological ancestor of all humans and Adam as a theological representation of the human condition. I won’t stake my faith on any particular view. See my post Adam and the Shack.