Evolution and the Churches of Christ

It has been an interesting few months for my particular flavour of Christianity, the Restoration Movement (also known as the Stone-Campbell Movement).  The Restoration Movement began in America (and is indeed more popular in America than in Canada) in the early 1800s as two separate movements, one led by Barton Stone and the other by the father and son team of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, both of whom sought to bring the church back to its New Testament roots (hence 'restoration').  It emerged within the context of the Second Great Awakening at Cane Ridge.  Justice and equality were important virtues for Restoration Movement followers - the Campbells began their work in response to the exclusivity within their Presbyterian churches, in which the poor and outcast were not allowed to participate in communion.  From this simple beginning the Restoration Movement churches - Churches of Christ (independent), Churches of Christ (a cappella) and the denominational Disciples of Christ - were founded.  The independent and a cappella churches are considered to be non-denominational, their slogan being 'we are Christians only, but we are not the only Christians.'

Communion and a Call for Social Justice

I have, for most of my life, gone to a church that practices weekly Communion (what you may also know as the Lord’s Supper, or Eucharist, depending on your background).  Unlike Catholic traditions, my evangelical church would pass out tiny little cups containing grape juice, and would have tiny little portions of unleavened bread.  We would, as a body, take these little tokens/symbols (for us, not Sacraments) and ‘partake’ of them.  That was always the phrase.  ‘Partake’.  It was never ‘eat’ or ‘digest’ or, heaven forbid, ‘masticate’.  We were much more respectful than that.

The Other Side of Fundamentalism - James Orr's 'Science and the Christian Faith'

When people think of Fundamentalist Christians, they (I'm sorry to say) tend to think of closeminded, loudmouthed, arrogant people who wouldn't recognize valid evidence or a rational argument if it hit them upside the head.  Although in my experience there are definitely some of these, this, like all stereotypes, is a dangerous mischaracterization of the richness of viewpoints that exist among Fundamentalists.  Fundamentalist Christians are just like everyone else - they are eager to know the world, and they are prone to making mistakes.  

Last week I remarked on an article published in 1911 in The Fundamentals, a Protestant journal that would come to define Fundamentalist Christianity.  The author, who remained anonymous, joyfully bashed both evolution and those who would preach it, but he (or she) at times confused scientific controversy over the role of natural selection, with a scientific disavowal of evolution itself.  The article is certainly insightful, witty and quite well-written - there is nothing slack-jawed or unintelligent about it - but by posting it on this site I may have led you to believe that all Fundamentalists have been historically opposed to evolution.

The Birth of Fundamentalism

Between 1910 and 1915, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles published a series of essays collectively referred to as The Fundamentals.  They were written as a response to various perceived threats against an orthodox Protestant faith, and reaffirmed those doctrines that were considered fundamental to a vibrant Christianity.  The denounced philosophies included liberal theology, the 'higher criticism' of scripture that was reaching America from Germany, Catholicism, Mormonism, atheism and many others.  It is from the title of these essays that we get the term 'fundamentalism' and 'fundamentalist Christianity.'

Although at least one of the early Fundamentals articles was sympathetic towards evolution, this changed with the article 'Evolutionism in the Pulpit', published in 1911 by an anonymous author.  The entire text is below.  It is a witty and scathing critique of Darwin's theory of evolution, and should give you a good sense of some of the reasons why the Fundamentalist movement was so successful.  Before you read it, though, I wanted to highlight a few items of interest:

Why I Don't Hate Rob Bell

Last week I read an interesting blog post from Tim Challies, entitled The New Evangelical Virtues (follow the link to read it; it is quite short).  It was written primarily in response to the publication of Rob Bell's latest book, Love Wins: Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.  For those of you who have been living under a rock over the past few weeks, Bell, a pastor at Mars Hill and a leader of what has been called the 'emerging church', an increasingly popular postmodern Christian movement, wrote a book about God's grace and hell, which the day after its release was the fifth most popular book on Amazon and made number two on the New York Times bestseller's list.