Evolutionary Theory

Another point I made in my blog on syncretism in the Western church is this:

'A kind of intellectual belief in evolution that makes us want to believe any advance is good, not only in technology, but also in morality, world view, spirituality, and so on. There is no biblical basis for this. In fact the Bible tends to view many so-called 'advances' as moves away from God. For example, when the people of Israel asked for a king, so they could be like other nations, the prophet Samuel (in 1Sam 8) told them very clearly what that would mean for them, and it wasn't an upgrade!'

At the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century there was enormous optimism in Western culture. We seemed to be making many discoveries, documenting all known life-forms, and progressing at a tremendous rate in terms of scientific progress. Underlying much of this optimism was a belief on evolution - not just evolution of species but evolution of civilisations. We believed that 'primitive' cultures could evolve into 'modern' cultures. Often we expected them to take the following path, in terms of their religious beliefs:

traditional religion and/or polytheism ==> monotheism ==> theism or deism ==> humanism/atheism

It was thought that belief in one God was more 'civilised' than belief in many, and that the belief in a divine principle and logic that was behind the world was more civilised than that, and finally people would reach atheism.

This optimism also affected the church, and resulted in a kind of postmillenial theology based on Rev 20 that believed that we were living in a golden age of prosperity that would soon be followed by the 2nd coming of Christ. Of course that isn't the only possible reading of Rev 20. Amongst others there are premillenialists (who believe Christ will return before a literal millenium), amillenialists (who believe that Revelation should be read as a series of pictures/analogies), and, as the old joke goes, panmillenialists ('it's all gonna pan out in the end') :). Many postmillenialists were occupied in trying to make life better for those not yet living in the golden age. This resulted in some good things - social action, fighting issues of injustice, and so on. But it tended to result in an all 'now' and no 'not yet' view of the Kingdom of God.

Another problem with postmillenialism was that it was based on evolutionary ideas. But the evolutionary ideas are simply not true. There are no 'primitive' cultures, at least not in terms of their beliefs and practices. In fact it's possible to see modern civilisations as more fragmented and therefore a deterioration of values we held in earlier times. As I said above, Israel asking for a king was a step away from the God-as-king model of politics and religion they had previously lived by.

In any case, postmillenialism was way too optimistic. The optimism was wiped away by the events of the 1st world war. In fact the 20^th century, with its highly developed modernistic philosophies (Marxism, Socialism, etc.), had the most atrocities in any century since historical records began.  This pessimism led to the rise of many dispensational premillenialist movements such as the Brethren and some Pentecostal groups. Dispensationalists believe that the Bible has several ages, known as dispensations, and that God dealt differently with Israel/us differently in each 'dispensation'.

Although there is now a widespread scepticism of modernist views I've described above, postmodernism can sometimes be just that, a negative reaction to modernism. A scepticism in science, and all that we used to put our trust in. This has been replaced by a view that local is good, and that there is no metanarrative. All beliefs are equally valid. 

In terms of churches, and their position on this, I would say some are still stuck in modernism, so therefore have a rather over-optimistic view in the role of science as the bedrock of all other beliefs.

Other churches have swung to a postmodern view that all cultures are valid and equally important. Therefore we have little to share with those from other cultures and should concentrate on reaching our own. 

There is yet another view coming to the fore, which is globalism. In this view each culture has something good to offer. Therefore Westerners still have a role to play in seeing the world reached for Christ. We work alongside locals to see the work accomplished, rather than being in charge and passing on some of the above ideas, that, quite frankly, are somewhat bankrupt. We act as catalysts, but try not to influence ideas directly, rather we model biblical living and values as Westerners, realising that the people we work with may choose to go in a different direction, equally biblical, but contextualised for their own situation.

In conclusion, we need to be more humble and see ourselves as much in need of influence from others as vice-versa. There are many good, vibrant churches in other parts of the world we can learn from. If we can also pass on some of what we have learnt, that is a good thing!