Biblical Literalism: Where did it come from and why has it stayed?

Recently I have been reading my C.S. Lewis collection. As I made my way through Mere Christianity there was one point that struck me as peculiar. It was not something that Lewis directly addressed (perhaps that’s what makes it significant in the first place) but rather something that nearly slipped through the cracks as I read his apologetics. C.S Lewis, one of the most popular Christian Apologists of all time, believed in the Theory of Evolution.

For those of you that are skeptical, here are two great quotes:

“If by saying that man rose from brutality you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection. But it does not follow that the further back you go the more brutal—in the sense of wicked or wretched—you will find man to be.”

and

“For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me,’ which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.”

(From The Problem of Pain)

After reading these two quotes it becomes clear that C.S. Lewis believes in the science of evolutionary biology in some form or another. Interestingly enough, as I mentioned, this wouldn’t even be considered significant by Lewis or his colleagues. In fact, this whole opposition to evolution seems to have only caught on in modern North American theology.

The question we have to ask, then, is this:

Why are North American Christians so comfortable referencing the writing of C.S. Lewis, yet so uncomfortable about the idea of evolution?

Many churches have put it directly in their statement of faith that they believe in Young Earth Creation and a literal reading of Genesis. If the belief in evolution did not affect Lewis’ theology to a degree where it became incompatible with modern Christianity, then why is modern Christianity so quick to oppose the widespread acceptance of evolution as a valid part of someone’s theism?

Reformation

To understand this issue of interpretation, I think that it is important to clarify something.

Many Evangelical Christians see themselves as being on a mission to replicate the early Church as well as they can. In this way they must defend the Church from anything that tries to pull it away from its resolve. They see liberal interpretations of Biblical texts (Liberal Theology) as watered down versions of Christianity, diluted by New Age spirituality and philosophy. Of course, to reflect the early church, which rejoiced in their persecutions and commitment to faith, such a dangerous progression towards pseudo-Christianity must be firmly resisted at all costs.

It is on this level that the conflict between faith and science is imagined. I could argue endlessly that faith and science do not need to be in conflict but I cannot argue against the fact that they are seen as in conflict by many Christians. The reason, I suspect, is that people have grown their faith, more often than not, through scripture right from the beginning. To contradict these roots, by allowing something such as science to change what you believe, is to become liberal in your ways. To be willing to disagree is to be too uncertain – unresolved – in your faith.

What I want you to take away from this is not that Christians are wrong in their stubborn resistance of liberal theology or the defense of the value of the bible. Furthermore, I do not want to mislead you to think that I am defending liberal theology. In-fact, C.S. Lewis asserted the following in opposition to the idea that Jesus was nothing more than a moral teacher:

“You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or oyu can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” (From Mere Christianity)

What I am arguing is that evolution is not liberal theology.

Misplaced Attention

To me, liberal theology is based on the idea that an individual can be free to interpret the Bible quite loosely and as nothing more than a collection of stories and lessons in morality. Really, liberal theology is no sort of theology at all. There is no real study involved. Liberal theology is the sort of thing that can produce arguments that are resolved by statements such as “well, that’s your opinion” or “each person takes away something different.

This is, quite obviously, not the attitude that produces a belief in evolution.

A belief in theistic evolution is not based on interpreting the Bible without evidence. It is based on interpreting the Bible using multiple sources of evidence, rather than just one. This is clearly not the same as leaving the interpretation up to opinion and emotion. While it is true that paleontology can be used to discredit a literal interpretation of Genesis, it is also true that archaeology can be used to defend the accuracy of Luke’s Gospel. Even better: the same methods of research that can be used to argue that the writers of the Torah were not concerned with history can also be used to argue that the writers of the Gospel were. 

Which is more reliable, Science or the Bible?

The heading above is written as though it were a question one was asked in an interview. It pains me to say that this is often the terms in which a Christian is thinking when they attack someone for not believing in Young Earth Creationism. It calls to mind a statement that I read, though I cannot remember where I read it, where someone wrote “it is as if some Christians believe that the Devil put the dinosaur bones there to trick us.”

I know that this is not necessarily how most young earth creationists see the problem, but it does bring up an important dilemma that many seem stuck on: If you had to choose between believing what the Bible says, and believing what Science tells us, which would you choose?

This, of course, makes it seem as though there is a scenario in which you would have to choose. There are no such cases and here is why:

To believe in Theistic Evolution is not to believe in science over the Bible. It is rather the belief that science should shape our interpretation of the Bible. Science becomes the supplementary material.

The Danger of Interpretation

There is no doubt in my mind that many of you think an interpretation of the Bible shaped by science is equally as dangerous as Liberal Theology. If that is what you are thinking, let me point out something that was brought up by Augustine centuries ago.

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it.”

In other words, Augustine is arguing that a particular interpretation of Genesis, such as a literal interpretation, is just that – an interpretation. To defend a stance such as that is not defending The Word of God; It is defending your interpretation of The Word of God. When a Christian plants their feet in the ground when it comes to something like evolution, they are opening up their faith to a great discrediting. Augustine also wrote the following, and I feel it is a caring warning for those still afraid to let their faith be shaped by science:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason.”

Conclusion

The Christian Church is in an aggressive defense of Biblical authority from Liberal Theology. Such theology, in which interpretations are justified based on the fact that they are just one more opinion on the pile, undermine both Christian doctrine as well as the authority of reasoning and scientific methodology. The Christian defense against this liberalism is, therefore, understandable. Theistic Evolution, as understood by Lewis, however, does not fall under the category of Liberalism. Instead, it is the practice of letting science shape interpretation of Biblical texts: a practice with Augustine endorsed. The dangers of solidifying our position and our interpretations, as Augustine points out, are that those outside the Church may attribute our foolish interpretations to the writers themselves – rendering the texts ineffective.