Dear Christis,

I was concerned greatly by the article Theistic Evolution by Matthew Moxon in Issue 34 of Christis . I was disturbed that by the way he effectively called those Christians who did not subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Creation story blasphemers: be in no doubt, to accuse someone of calling God a liar is an extremely serious suggestion. I feel this is particularly perturbing considering that he is making this accusation against many non-literalist C.U. members (including myself) who, as a member of the C.U. executive committee, he represents. I feel therefore it is my duty to respond to the points made in the article and attempt to show that a non-literalist belief is entirely consistent with evangelical, Biblical based, Christianity.

Not being an expert in evolutionary theory it would be most inappropriate form my argument on these grounds. Rather I shall attempt to deal with the two main arguments I felt he brought forth against belief in Theistic evolution from a purely logical and Biblical level.

Firstly, Matthew argued, along with quotes from Dr. Phillip C. Johnson, that “… this theory, [Theistic Evolution] by attempting to unite two diametrically opposed principles, makes a mockery of both evolution and creation.” To assert that two seemingly opposed principles must be irreconcilable per se shows a stubbornness of mind which is contrary to much of orthodox Christian belief. The best example (though there are many) has to be that of Christ himself. For surely, on the face of it, the belief that an immanent, transcendent God can have all his fullness dwell in the body of a finite man is just as seemingly irreconcilable. It is only by an open and striving mind that we can begin to understand this mystery and hence find its wonderful truth.

Secondly, and more seriously, he argued that Theistic Evolution denied a majority of the fundamental doctrines such as the fall, sin and spiritual death and that as such the sacrifice of Jesus is meaningless. If this were the case then Theistic evolution would indeed be flawed. However, what I feel he is missing is that theological truth can, and often undeniably is, expressed through allegory. When Jesus described himself as a vine, and the elect as the branches, it is absurd to suggest he was speaking literally. Rather he is describing how he is the source and sustenance of all things. The parables of Jesus are fine examples of this. But who would call Jesus a liar for telling them? This being the case, it is quite conceivable that the doctrines of man’s fallen nature should likewise be expressed allegorically. Hence, just because you don’t believe in the literal account does not mean you do not accept the theological truth expounded therein. I sincerely hope, despite his belief in the literal Creationist argument to be correct, that he will accept this and hence withdraw his serious doctrinal accusations.

Yours in Christ,

Andrew Filby