Creating an

Evangelical Statement
on Evolution

Author:
Steve Martin

Document Version: 1.0

Last Updated: September 12, 2009

This document is a compilation of weblog posts; the individual articles remain the property of the author. You are
free to share, copy, or distribute this document in full within the limitations of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License and the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. To view copies of these licenses, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/.

1
 Table of Contents

A) INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................3

B) THE SIX ESE ARTICLES .............................................................................................................................4

I. Building a Community of Evolutionary Creationists ........................................................................................4
II. An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE): Objectives .............................................................................5
III. An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE): Approach ...............................................................................6
IV. An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE): Contents.................................................................................7
V. ESE Contents: Addendum .................................................................................................................................9
VI. The Process of Building an Evangelical Statement on Evolution ...................................................................10

2
A) Introduction
This Ebook contains six articles that discuss the creation of an Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE). These
articles were published as a series between June 15 and September 7, 2009 on the weblog An Evangelical Dialogue
on Evolution. The series was motivated by a post by Francis Collins on “Science and Sacred” where he asked for
ideas on building “a new and vibrant community dedicated to finding the truth in both science and faith”. I believe
the ESE could be a catalyst for just such a community.

The first post in the series, entitled “Building a Community of Evolutionary Creationists”, introduces the concept of
the ESE and outlines why I think it would be helpful. Posts two to four in the series outline my view of objectives
for the ESE, the approach we should take, and a framework for the contents of the ESE. Throughout the series I
received excellent and thoughtful feedback from other Evolutionary Creationists (ECs). Some of this feedback
prompted me to augment my ideas with a “Contents addendum” article – this was post#5. The sixth post provides
an overview of the process I believe should be followed to ensure the success of the project.

Once again I would like to thank all those who provided their thoughts, ideas, and reactions to the series within the
comments sections of the individual blog posts as well as to those who contacted me via email to provide their
private comments, criticisms, and encouragement. It was greatly appreciated.

3
B) The Six ESE Articles
I. Building a Community of
Evolutionary Creationists
Published June 15, 2009
Many of us that accept the scientific consensus for
evolution find it difficult to find like-minded
individuals interested in exploring the theological
implications of an evolving creation. Many others
(maybe most Evangelical ECs) would risk
membership in their Christian community (Church,
mission, etc.) if their views were known. (See for
example our past discussion on the question: Would
your church allow you to publicly support evolution).
In a new post on changing beliefs, Cliff Martin
comments on his frustration in finding this type of
community:
So I am facing a conundrum. I am motivated to
prepare my friends for what I consider an
inevitable paradigm shift, and to develop a
community of believers who will study the Bible
with me from an evolutionary perspective. But I
am having no success. And I risk alienating my
own friends if I continue.
The irony is that in seeking to bring together a
community that values integrity in both science and
faith, we risk being ostracized from both the
community of faith and the community of science.
Collins on Creating a New Community
Francis Collins is trying to rectify this problem. In a
recent post on “Creating a Community to Explore the
Harmony of Science and Faith”, Collins stated that
he would like to:
[encourage] a new and vibrant community
dedicated to finding the truth in both science and
faith. The shrill voices at the poles of the science
and faith discussion that claim the scientific and
spiritual worldviews are incompatible have their
own organized communities. But what about the
vast majority that seeks a third way?
From my own limited experience / knowledge, I
think Collins belief that a “vast majority” seek this
3rd way is probably overly optimistic. But he is
absolutely right that the situation is much better now
than it was even a decade ago. He comments that:
There are encouraging signs that people who
trust both God and science are beginning to
create such a community.
All of us should be thankful to Collins, Falk,
Giberson, and the rest of the Biologos team for
starting to provide resources for building this type of
community. I’m also happy to see Collins is looking
for input from other EC/TEs. He states:
These are just initial efforts to help catalyze a
community devoted to seeking harmony in science
and faith. We'd love to hear any ideas that could
help in building this community.
A Suggestion
Well, since he asked, here is my suggestion. I think
we should publish an “Evangelical Statement on
Evolution” that succinctly states that an Evangelical
expression of the Christian faith, and the scientific
theory of evolution are compatible. This could be
modeled after the Clergy Letter Project, but crafted in
a way to ensure it has an explicitly Evangelical
character. The statement sponsoring signatories
should include evangelical leaders from 1) a broad
range of denominations 2) several different academic
disciplines (at least scientists, biblical scholars and
theologians - yes, we definitely need those timid
theologians) and 3) a cross section of Evangelical
organizations (eg. missions, umbrella groups like the
EFC and the NAE). The statement should also have
some mechanism for allowing the rest of us to sign
on as well.
And, come to think of it, that November meeting that
Tim Keller, Collins and other leading scientists,
biblical scholars, and theologians are having would
be a great forum to launch this initiative.
Your Feedback
Ok, that’s my idea. What do you think? Do you think
the time is right for an Evangelical Statement on
Evolution? Would it be a positive step in the
discussion, or would it serve only to raise more
divisiveness? Do you have any other ideas you’d like
to suggest to the Biologos team?
4

II. An Evangelical Statement on
Evolution (ESE): Objectives
Published July 7, 2009
In the last post we discussed the possibility & value
of building an Evangelical Statement on Evolution
(ESE for short). Personally, I think the time is right
for Evolutionary Creationists (ECs) to produce such
a statement. However, I also think we need to be very
careful; there are some risks in a project like this. If
not done right, the results could be very
counterproductive.
A New Series
In the next several posts I’d like to take a preliminary
stab at:
a) the objectives we should define for the ESE
b) the approach and character of the statement
c) the contents of the statement
d) the process by which we should build it (hint: the
answer isn’t the internet let alone this blog).
I should stress that these are merely preliminary
ideas. I’m hoping that they can serve as a catalyst for
other ECs to come up with something even better.
Actually, most of these ideas are not my own, but
merely a synthesis of ideas that others have
contributed here and elsewhere. At the end of this
series I’m mulling over conducting a survey to get
further feedback. Let me know if you would like to
participate (or better yet, if you have a good idea on
how such a survey should be conducted).
A) ESE Objectives
First we need to define objectives. Why do we really
need a statement like the ESE? What are we trying to
accomplish? Just as importantly, what is beyond the
scope of the ESE? We need to set practical
objectives; setting unachievable objectives is simply
a recipe for failure. Since (I believe) we want to
achieve a broad consensus on what the statement
contains, we better have agreement among ourselves
on what we are trying to accomplish.
Objective #1: Communicate the Harmony of Faith
and Science to the Broader Evangelical
Community
Most Evangelicals believe that modern science, and
biological evolution in particular, is the enemy of
orthodox Christian theology and faith. What is
worse, most Evangelicals seem completely unaware
that any other view is possible, and that many within
their faith community, including some of their own
leaders, have already reconciled biological evolution
with their faith. A key objective of the ESE will be to
raise awareness that coming to peace with evolution
is a theologically acceptable perspective for
Evangelical Christians.
Objective #2: Provide Encouragement for those
Struggling with the Perceived Conflict between
Science and Faith
For many, the perceived conflict between faith and
science is irreconcilable and thus a choice must be
made. This choice can be emotionally and spiritually
destructive. The ESE should provide encouragement
to those struggling with this conflict, and provide a
catalyst for them to come to peace with both their
Creator and his creation. This applies to at least three
groups of people:
a) Evangelicals considering abandoning their faith
because of the evidence for evolution
Evangelicals are often told that evolution is
incompatible with Christianity and that it is
unsupported by the scientific evidence. However,
many Evangelicals that actually examine the
evidence for biological evolution find the evidence
quite persuasive, and, because of the conflict thesis,
they incorrectly believe that their faith must be
abandoned. The ESE should demonstrate that many
other Evangelicals have accepted the evidence for
evolution without abandoning the core elements of
Evangelical theology, and while maintaining an
authentic and vibrant faith in the risen Christ.
b) Evangelicals that are fearful of science
Evangelical students will often avoid science (I did)
because they are afraid that it will be detrimental to
their faith. The ESE should show that Christians have
nothing to fear from studying science, and that a
deeper understanding of creation can lead to a deeper
appreciation of the Creator.
c) Those prevented from putting their faith in Christ
because of the perceived science / faith conflict
It is my impression that many people who are
science-literate have difficulty accepting the Gospel
because they equate the evidence for biological
evolution with evidence against Christianity. This
conflict-thesis stumbling block must be removed if
5
the good news is to be received. The ESE should
make it clear that evolution should not prevent
anyone from making a faith commitment.
Objective #3: Serve as both a Resource and
Encouragement for ECs
Many EC’s are part of communities that are hostile to
evolution. These ECs are often reluctant to discuss
their ideas within this community for fear of being
ostracized. The ESE should provide encouragement
to ECs by demonstrating that many Evangelical
leaders share their perspective. It should also be a
simple and non-threatening resource that can be
shared with friends and other members of their
community. Hopefully, this in turn will lead to
positive dialogue regarding faith and science.
B) Other Worthy Objectives that the ESE
should not try to Accomplish
To be successful, the ESE should not try to
accomplish too much. Below are a few objectives
that, although desirable goals in their own right,
should not be considered as objectives for the ESE.
1. Provide Counterarguments to those Raised by
AIG, ICR and other Like-minded Organizations
“Anti-evolution Creationist” organizations are well-
funded and relatively powerful within the
Evangelical community; no doubt they will attack the
ESE with vigour. However, it would be impossible to
respond to every argument these organizations put
forward if we want the ESE to be shorter than a
book. We have a multitude of other methods and
resources that provide persuasive counter arguments
to the conflict-thesis mantra. The ESE should simply
make a positive statement on the compatibility of
biological evolution and the Christian faith without
trying to provide a detailed defense of Evolutionary
Creationism.
2. Provide Counterarguments to those that use
Evolution to Attack Christianity
For a similar reason, Christian apologetics should not
be the goal of the ESE. Again, there are other
resources for this purpose.
3. Trigger a Wholesale Change of Attitude within
the Broader Evangelical Community
We need to be realistic; a simple statement like the
ESE will not result in an immediate and dramatic
change of attitude among a majority of Evangelicals.
If we can simply start a dialogue, and bring hope to
those struggling with the issue, the ESE should be
considered a great success.
4. Defend the Integrity of Science in Public
Education
Christians should be particularly concerned about
integrity. So, it is galling to see dishonest methods
used by some Christians in attacking the teaching of
evolution. But defending the teaching of evolution
should not be the goal of the ESE. That should be left
to organizations like, for example, the NCSE.
So, what do you think? Are these valuable
objectives? Are they achievable within a reasonable
amount of time? Has the bar been set to low? Too
high? What other objectives would you like to see?
III. An Evangelical Statement on
Evolution (ESE): Approach
Published July 13, 2009
In the last post we discussed the objectives for the
ESE. Before moving on to the content of the
statement (that will be the next post in the series), I’d
like to first share my view on the ESE’s approach.
What should be its character? If someone read the
ESE for the first time, how would they describe it?
Characteristic #1: Positive in Tone and
Content
Sadly, many Christian position statements seem very
negative, both in their tone (aggressively attacking
whatever is perceived to be the problem) and in
content (defining itself by what it is not, rather than
what it is). Given the polarization of positions in the
faith / science dialogue, a negative statement by
Evolutionary Creationists (ECs) would only
exacerbate this polarization. Special creationists are
not our enemies; they are our brothers and sisters in
Christ. Atheists are not our enemies; they too are
created in the image of God (even if this is not
acknowledged). If we want our message to be heard,
we need to state our position with grace and
compassion. If our objective is to win hearts and
minds (or at least convince others that there is no
need for warfare), we need to articulate positive
aspects of an EC position (see HornSpiel's comment).
6
Characteristic #2: Displaying a Spirit of
Humility
All of us have been wrong at times. Many of us were
once very wrong on the evidence for evolution (and
maybe, to our shame, made aggressive claims that we
now regret). Since we are called to clothe ourselves
with humility (Col 3:12), the ESE should echo that
humility. ECs are not necessarily smarter, more
honest, or more Christ-like; we have simply
discovered (often through painful experience) that
the science-faith war is completely unnecessary. The
ESE should be written to share this good news, and
not as an opening salvo for renewed debate.
Characteristic #3: Modest in its claims
I like Allan’s point in an earlier comment that the
ESE should be modest in its claims. Scientific
theories are continually being corrected and modified
(see Irenicums comment) and we should not tie the
ESE to specific (and possibly debatable) aspects of
the theory. Allan’s proposed affirmation that:
science suggests that God may have used
evolutionary processes to create, and from a
Biblical and theological standpoint it is OK if
that's how it happened
may be too modest for some of us, but I think it is
good place to start the discussion. I suspect the extent
of the modesty will be one of the more difficult
decisions to make when crafting the ESE.
Characteristic#4: Broad appeal
One of the most attractive aspects of Evangelicalism
is its ability to see beyond denominational
boundaries. Most Evangelicals are very willing to
work with others in advancing the Kingdom of God,
even when theological differences abound. The ESE
should take this approach as well, and appeal to the
entire Evangelical spectrum. This means that the ESE
should avoid specific theological claims that would
be unacceptable to Reformed, Arminian, Lutheran,
Anglican, Anabaptist, or any other Evangelical
theological tradition.
Characteristic #5: Short
If the ESE is to raise awareness of the faith-science
dialogue within the Evangelical community, it will
have to be relatively short. A long, detailed document
will not be broadly read, and will mean that certain
interpretations of the ESE (probably unfriendly) will
be read more than the ESE itself. If the ESE is longer
than this blog post, it is probably too long.
Characteristic #6: “An” Evangelical
statement; not “The” statement
No one can claim to speak for all Evangelicals, and
this is especially true in the polarized science-faith
dialogue. On the one hand, the ESE should clearly
state that the position it espouses on scripture,
creation, and evolution is consistent with the
Evangelical tradition and that it is accepted by a wide
variety of Evangelicals. However, it should also
acknowledge that this position will not be acceptable
to all Evangelicals, at least in the short term.
Questions
Is this an approach you think would work? Are there
other characteristics that should be considered?
IV. An Evangelical Statement on
Evolution (ESE): Contents
Published July 29, 2009
Crafting a statement on evolution may be difficult for
Evangelical Evolutionary Creationists (ECs). On the
one hand, this is a very contentious topic in the
broader Evangelical community and we must be
careful if we are to have a positive impact on that
community. On the other hand, many salient aspects
of the dialogue are contentious even within the very
small EC community. In the last post we discussed
“How” we should say what we need to say; in this
one I’ll lay out my suggestions on “What” we should
say.
Some Initial Notes
I) A qualification: This is a broad overview of the
content, and not a suggestion for the final (or maybe
even initial) wording. My hope is that others will
take this content and create the final statement (more
on that in the next post)
II) A note on style: I see three options for the ESE
(other suggestions welcome)
1. A style similar to the Clergy Letter Project
2. A “We believe” statement – somewhat like a
statement of faith
3. An Open Letter to our Evangelical community
My initial vote would go with #3.
7
III) Sections: I have divided the content into 6
sections: Creation, New Creation, Scripture, Science,
Biological Evolution, and Purpose. These do not
need to form 6 sections in the final ESE but I believe
all of this content should be included in some
manner.
A) Creation
The ESE should begin with an emphatic affirmation
that we believe in creation. We trust in a God to
whom the universe owes its origin and being. We
trust a loving Creator who continues to sustain his
creation from moment to moment. Even though the
term “creation” has been tarnished in our modern
culture, we need to reclaim and proclaim creation. As
Richard Bube outlined most eloquently back in 1971,
“We Believe in Creation”.
B) A New Creation
We also look forward to a new creation, when “All
things will be made new”. The resurrection of Jesus
Christ is both our hope and our promise. But this
New Creation is not something that is restricted to
the future. It is in our hearts. The Kingdom of God
has already come. This is the good news we want to
share with others.
C) Scripture
As Christians, we are “People of the Book”; as
Protestant Christians we maintain the authority of
Scripture; as Evangelical Protestants we continue to
affirm the inspiration and authority of the Bible, from
Genesis to Revelation, even when many of our
Protestant cousins no longer agree with this claim.
Three points for discussion here:
1. I believe the ESE should remain silent on
inerrancy, even as umbrella organizations like the
NAE and the EFC are silent. Some Evangelical EC’s
may still strongly affirm inerrancy (although, maybe
not the version articulated in the Chicago Statement).
Other Evangelical EC’s (maybe most) have strong
reservations on inerrancy or at least would wish to
qualify the term.
2. I am not sure if the ESE should say anything about
scientific concordism. Some (probably a very few)
ECs still maintain this hermeneutic strategy. So I’m
tempted to be silent on this as well since a) I think
the ESE should be as “big a tent as possible” and b) I
think we should minimize negative terminology. On
the other hand, as Rob mentioned here, scientific
concordism is very problematic. So maybe the
statement needs to say something as simple as
“God’s Word is not intended to teach us science”.
3. More fundamentally, what does the ESE state
about specific interpretations of Genesis –
particularly Gen 1-11 or maybe just Gen 1-3? I am at
a loss on what to say here – I’m tempted again to
remain silent. How does one produce a statement
which is acceptable to both staunch concordists (eg.
Glenn Morton and Dick Fischer) and to those who
maintain that the early part of Genesis bears little
relation to historical or scientific fact (eg. Denis
Lamoureux and Paul Seely)?
D) Science
Two things we should mention:
1. Christians are called to be people of integrity. This
includes the area of science. We need to go where the
evidence leads us, not where we think the evidence
should go.
2. Many Evangelicals fear science (see ESE objective
2b) . This is highly regrettable. Since science is the
study of God’s handiwork, Christians should revel in
the study of creation. As Stephen Matheson noted,
opponents of faith stole the reverent study of science
from the Church; it may be time to steal it back.
E) Biological Evolution
I have already received several suggestions for what
to include here. My view is that we include only
those claims that are well supported by the evidence.
This basically maps to E1, E2, and E3 from Allan’s
definitions for evolution:
 The earth is billions of years old and the
geological record shows a progression in the
development of life over many millions of years.
 Common descent: The evidence strongly
indicates links between all living organisms both
in the present and in the past. Thus we can say
with some confidence that any two living
organisms on earth today share a common
ancestor (maybe in the very ancient past).
 Many different evolutionary mechanisms (eg.
natural selection, genetic mutations, genetic
drift) are important factors in the development of
life on earth. It appears that God used these
mechanisms in creating life, including the
creation of humanity, the living organism he
created in his own image.
8
My suggestion is that we leave out E4 (that
evolutionary mechanisms completely account for
common descent). Personally, I have no problem
with E4 and believe it is theologically attractive and
sound. However, I also believe the really important
hurdle for the Evangelical church is common
descent; let’s not make the bar higher than it needs to
be (or possibly higher than it is warranted).
F) Purpose
Many people equate evolution with purposelessness.
We must state categorically that this is incorrect. God
has a definite purpose for creation; he has revealed
much of that purpose through his written Word and
the Word made flesh. God has both the ability and
the will to accomplish that purpose, no matter what
the cost (and thus his ultimate sacrifice). That his
purpose will be accomplished is ultimately assured –
even though he has given much freedom to his
creation (including rebellious humanity).
I suggest that the ESE remain silent on design. I am
sure that some ECs will be passionate in their desire
to include some positive affirmation of design in the
ESE; I am equally sure that many others (maybe
most) would just as strongly wish to articulate a
rejection of Intelligent Design (at least the ID
movement). I think neither strategy would be helpful
in accomplishing the goals articulated earlier. Design
is a slippery concept, and I doubt we will achieve
consensus on how we should articulate our position
on it. More pertinent however, even though all of us
believe that an intelligent designer (our God) was
responsible for creation, design is not nearly as
strong as purpose, is not as scripturally relevant as
purpose, and is not as theologically important as
purpose. Thus purpose must, in my opinion, be
included the ESE while design should be neither
affirmed nor rejected.
G) Conclusion
In our conclusion, I think we should affirm that we
believe that harmony between faith and science can
be achieved. However, we should also acknowledge
that there are differences of opinion on how that
harmony is reached. There is no point in pretending
there is consensus when there may be significant
differences of opinion between us on matters like
biblical interpretation and models for divine action.
What we share however, is a faith in the Creator
God, and a desire demonstrate integrity in the study
of his creation.
Finally, I believe we should directly address
objective #2 defined earlier, ie. Helping those
struggling with issues of faith and science. We might
articulate it as follows:
 To those Evangelicals considering abandoning
their faith because of the evidence for evolution
we say, “The conflict between science and an
Evangelical expression of the Christian faith is
completely unnecessary. We can trust the
Creator God even if our understanding of how
he created has changed over the centuries.
 To those Evangelicals that fear science we say,
“Do not be afraid. Science is simply the study of
God’s creation. A deeper understanding of
creation can lead to a deeper appreciation of the
Creator.”
 To those who are considering a commitment to
Christ we say, “You CAN have the best of both
worlds; both the one that leads to forgiveness,
love, and spiritual fulfillment and the one that is
intellectually satisfying and coherent with a
scientific worldview.
Ok, in my last post I said the ESE should be short.
However, in describing the contents I wrote possibly
my longest post ever. Maybe this is going to be even
more difficult than anticipated.
V. ESE Contents: Addendum
Published August 10, 2009
In preparing this series on the ESE, I never intended
to get bogged down in the details of the actual
statement – that is a future task. However, after
receiving feedback on the content in the last post, I
think this brief content addendum is required to fix
some glaring omissions (three), and to suggest that
one of our objectives should be addressed more
indirectly.
A) Randomness and Purpose
Reconciling the randomness in evolution with God’s
sovereignty is a huge hurdle for many (see comments
by Vance); the ESE should address this, if only
briefly. In the section on purpose, we could mention
one or more of the following:
1. randomness is closely tied to
unpredictability. Unpredictability is often
simply a function of human limitations. God
does not have these limitations.
9
 2. Scripture asserts that God is in control &
can accomplish his purposes even in random
events (eg. Prov 16:33, Acts 1:26)
3. God provides true freedom to his creation
(eg. humanity) but is in complete control,
and can accomplish his purposes, even when
that freedom is abused.
Whole books have been written on this subject (eg.
God, Chance, and Purpose by David Bartholomew)
and rigorous debate on this reconciliation still
persists, even within the EC camp. So we need to
carefully consider what we say here. But to Vance’s
point, we can not be silent.
B) Scientific Explanations and God
Something should be mentioned about the
relationship between scientific explanations & divine
action. Two related points here:
1. Scientific explanations are not an alternative for
God’s action in the world; divine action and
natural events are not mutually exclusive (see
Hornspiel’s comments). The resolution of this
false dichotomy has been so ingrained in the EC
mindset (or at least mine) that we sometimes
forget others may consider it a problem. Since it
is a significant issue for many in our audience,
we should definitely make some statement
addressing the false dichotomy – maybe it
should be the first item mentioned in the section
on science.
2. On the other hand, science does not exclude the
possibility of miracles (eg. Comment by Vance).
Making scientific statements like “this event is
extremely unlikely to occur given our current
knowledge” or “no scientific explanation for this
past event can be made at this time” are valid
claims. However, science cannot rule out any
event a priora. As Evangelical Christians we
firmly believe that God can, has, and continues
to perform miracles within his creation, and that
some of those miracles would be deemed
“impossible” by science.
C) Mention of the Fear of Science
An explicit statement to those “who fear science”
may be counterproductive. Per the conversation in
the comments with wtanksley (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,
and #7), I agree we should take the explicit statement
out of the ESE but address it indirectly since this
target audience is important (even if there are many
in this group that would not admit membership in it).
D) Positive Statement on the message of
early Genesis
Stating something positive on the message of the
early part of Genesis is, I suspect, the most glaring
omission in the previous post – several people
identified it (Joel was first). As a couple people noted
(Allan & Cliff), Evangelical OT scholars have taken
several different (often overlapping) hermeneutic
approaches to the first few chapters of Genesis.
Therefore we should be careful not to adopt one
single approach. Still, I think there are some
theological statements that should be mentioned. An
example of what we might say is below (a slightly
modified version of what Allan proposed):
The early chapters of Genesis have much to teach
us about God (his sovereignty over all of
creation, his faithfulness, and his love), creation
(it is good, it owes is being to God) and humanity
(our creation in the image of God, our
disobedience, and our dependence on God’s
faithfulness to repair our relationship). However,
the inspired writers were not trying to convey
scientific information in these early chapters and
we should not expect it to answer our modern
scientific questions.
So, yes I am abandoning my initial hesitation on
taking a firm stance against scientific concordism.
Whew …
Not sure if I mentioned it before, but writing a short
statement is probably going to be an order of
magnitude more difficult than writing a long one.
VI. The Process of Building an
Evangelical Statement on
Evolution
Published September 7, 2009
I would like to thank everyone who participated in
the conversation on the ESE, both in the comment
sections and via email; in particular I’d like to thank
those who provided emails of encouragement. To me,
it is clear that the time is ripe for this type of
statement from Evangelical ECs. This (much
delayed) final post outlines my own ideas on how we
should tackle the project.
10
Even though the internet is ideal for connecting those
with common interests, I believe that it is imperative
for the ESE to be launched and lead by a group that
can meet (at least initially) in face-to-face
discussions. What the ESE says and how it is
communicated to the broader Evangelical community
will be scrutinized very closely. Since the ESE is a
message of hope for our (current and future) brothers
and sisters in Christ, we must make every effort to
avoid careless, uninformed, or insensitive statements.
Face-to-face discussions should minimize this risk.
The Process
The tasks listed below are the ones I believe are
necessary to make the ESE a success. This is a more-
or-less chronological process although some overlap
is possible.
1) Formation of the ESE leadership group
The first step is to form a leadership group that can
provide oversight to all aspects of the project, and
who will be accountable for its ultimate success. This
group should have experts from various academic
and vocation backgrounds (scientists, theologians,
biblical scholars, pastors) and should reflect the
broad theological diversity within Evangelicalism.
2) Definition of vision and objectives
The first task for the leadership group is to define the
vision and objectives for the ESE. The discussion
during this blog series (particularly in the objectives
and approach posts) may be a helpful starting point
here.
3) Define and enlist a roster of authors
A small group of authors should be enlisted to draft
the ESE. This group could be a subset of the
leadership group; it should certainly include the same
theological, academic, denominational, and
vocational diversity. Ideally this roster would be
composed of 4 to 6 individuals; anything more could
prove unwieldy.
4) Define and enlist a group of Founding
Signatories
The roster of founding signatories may be even more
important than the roster of authors; ie. who signs the
document may be just as significant as what it says.
Ideally, all denominational, theological, and
international constituencies that are included within
Evangelicalism will be represented within this group
in some form. The group should also be composed of
respected Evangelical theologians, biblical scholars,
church and parachurch leaders, as well as
Evangelical scientists from the various scientific
disciplines relevant to the study of evolution.
Recruiting these founding signatories will be crucial
for the success of the ESE. It would also be helpful if
these signatories committed to providing an
introduction to the ESE (either formal or informal) to
their own constituency in a forum that seems most
appropriate to them.
5) Define the process for drafting and
achieving approval for the final statement
Although the authors are tasked with drafting the
statement, they should solicit input from a wide range
of Evangelicals. At a minimum the entire leadership
group and founding signatories would need to
approve the final wording. Yes I understand that this
step could significantly delay the publication of the
statement. However, I believe that formulating a
high-quality statement is more important than
releasing a hasty statement.
6) Publish the ESE
This is probably the easiest task; the internet is the
ideal place to publish a statement of this sort and
there are lots of options available. The leadership
group could also augment this with other targets (eg.
Evangelical publications like Christianity Today).
7) Implement a communication plan
The initial publication of the ESE will certainly be
important. However, we are after lasting impact, not
simply a flurry of publicity. As such, there needs to
be an ongoing communication plan to ensure that
believers and seekers continue to hear and have
access to the message that faith and evolution are not
in conflict. Fifteen or twenty years from now the
Evangelical church may have come to a lasting peace
with science. Until then we need a plan to continue
communicating the harmony between faith and
science.
8) Implement a mechanism to enroll other
signatories
Finally, the ESE should have some mechanism for
other Evangelical ECs to sign the statement. As well,
there should be processes in place for the ongoing
management of this list.
11
The First Step
From my viewpoint the first step is to form the ESE
leadership group. And although I believe this blog
series outlines a solid framework for launching the
ESE project, and that an informal group made up of
EC bloggers and our readers could publish a fairly
good statement, we could never come close to
maximizing the potential of this project. As I hinted
earlier, I think the Biologos Foundation is ideally
positioned to initiate this project. That fall workshop
led by Tim Keller with 15 leading scientists, 15
leading theologians, and 15 leading pastors from the
Evangelical community seems to me to be an ideal
forum to launch the discussion. The focus of the
workshop will be on:
celebrating God’s creation in light of 21st
century knowledge about the universe and our
place in it.
Worshiping our Creator and celebrating his creation
brings joy to both us and Him. But not everyone feels
this sense of wonderment and contentment. For
many, discussions about how the Creator created
produce only cognitive dissonance. We must go
beyond celebration and communicate to others why
this celebration is both possible and warranted. I
believe the ESE can help accomplish this goal.
12