The problem
"So, as to the question, I guess I’ll have to come out of the closet and admit…no, sorry kid, I don’t believe in a literal six-day creation" ("A Worshiping Evolutionist?").This is what's causing all the trouble. But let's not belabor the point. I'll continue to let Mr. Gungor explain his position: "[In] my Christian school growing up, we’d all snort and chuckle when a scientist in a documentary would mention evolution or talk about how this sort of animal existed millions of years ago. [...] But now that I am a songwriter, I see this whole thing as absolutely absurd.
Genesis is a poem if I’ve ever seen one" ("A Worshiping Evolutionist?"). But one of the things that's causing the most uproar is this assertion: "Because NO REASONABLE PERSON takes the entire Bible completely literally. It’s not possible." ("I'm With You") And finally, to explain why the Genesis account in particular is under fire: "BECAUSE SCIENCE SHOWED US THAT THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE." ("I'm With You").
Those emphases are Gungor's. I'm not trying to give him a tone of voice he didn't strike himself. The original blog post, A Worshiping Evolutionist?, and its more defensive sequel, I'm With You, both struck me as almost antagonistic to literalist creationism. In I'm With You, Gungor, in no uncertain terms, accuses those who believe in a literal six-day creation of being either ignorant of science or outright opposed to it. He also insinuates that those who believe in a literal six-day creation week have yet to see the light, so to speak. But that mindset is born of his personal experience. In A Worshiping Evolutionist, Gungor says that the reason he and his friends would snicker upon hearing references to evolution and millions of years was "so [they] knew [their] life wasn't a lie."
But that is not the same for every six-dayer. I do believe in a literal six-day creation, but I am not anti-science. I acknowledge that science forces young-earth Christians to answer tough questions, or to just say, "I don't have an answer." But unlike Michael Gungor, I also acknowledge that old-earth science has a certain bias. Outside elementary mathematics, nothing is indubitable. And my problem with theistic evolutionism is the compromise it requires.
Theistic evolutionism is, in my opinion, a dangerous compromise. It places science, particularly science that is biased against theism, in an exalted place above the infallible word of God. It requires the rejection of the first seven chapters of Genesis as either metaphorical or outright fiction. Now answer this. What does that say about the origins of Sin? What does that say about the plan of redemption? Is Sin just a product of Nature, the very Nature that God declared perfect (or did He?), then why is there any need for a Savior?
The solution?
What are people doing with this "coming out of the closet", as Gungor himself describes it? Boycotting. Removing support. Excluding. They are not trying to reprove; they are trying to punish. They are doing exactly what Gungor is accusing them of, creating a dichotomy where either you're a part of the six-dayer club or you're the enemy. My honest opinion? I sympathize. I understand. I think that people who place Science on a pedestal above the Bible are walking an extremely dangerous path. But does that mean we should shun them? Absolutely not. I cannot stress this enough.The conclusion.
Do I think Michael Gungor is mislead? Yes. I think he's rationalizing and placing Science before the Bible, which is a dangerous thing to do, even if it is becoming more mainstream. Gungor claims that this compromise does not jeopardize his salvation, while many of his critics do. But neither one knows for sure; only God can decide that. My opinion is that Gungor and his band are doing God's work. Again, I have no doubt that he loves God; he himself asserts this.While I am against Gungor's position on creationism, neither do I support the boycotts. I understand why people are boycotting, but honestly, I think boycotts are stupid. These divisive actions won't change anybody's mind, and they aren't representative of the character of God.
If you're a theistic evolutionist, for Pete's sake, don't belittle those who do believe in a literal six-day creation week. And if you're like me and think that theistic evolution is dangerous, for Pete's sake, don't be presumptuous and turn this into a binary decision that decides salvation, and don't adopt a mentality of exclusion.
Works Cited
1. Gungor, Michael. "A Worshiping Evolutionist?" Gungor. Gungor Music, 29 Oct. 2012. Web. Accessed 23 Aug. 2014.2. Gungor, Michael. "I'm With You." Gungor. Gungor Music, 06 Aug. 2014. Web. Accessed 23 Aug. 2014.
