Greg Boyd has changed his mind.
No, he’s not recounting his belief that God doesn’t know the future and sometimes loses at the hands of the evil powers. I wish it were so, since every time I read Boyd, the 60 percent of the material with which I agree so strongly, mostly his warfare motif of Scripture arguments found in his book God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict, makes me throw up my hands and yell, “Why can’t you be orthodox on the doctrine of God…and atonement…and gender…and…” well, you get the point.
Rather, Boyd’s giving up on the gap theory.
For years, the open theist has been the most prominent advocate of the “gap” theory, the idea once held by C.I. Scofield, W.A. Criswell, and others, that Genesis 1:2 and following describes the restoration of an earth made “formless and void” by the rebellion of the evil angels. The “gap” allowed for Boyd both an ancient universe and the good creation described by Genesis 1 and 2. But now, on his blog, Boyd says he’s changed his mind.
Boyd’s problem? There’s almost no scientific evidence for the kind of cosmic cataclysm he thinks is alluded to in Scripture. Boyd writes:
“If there was in fact a cataclysmic judgment on the earth and then a re-creation, as I’ve proposed we find in Genesis 1, one would think there should be some evidence of it. In fact, one would expect to find MASSIVE evidence for it. Now, one can certainly find a number of major cataclysims [sic] in earth’s violent history, but nothing that would come close to suggesting what the gap theory requires.
“So, folks, I seem to have a problem, and I need to face it.
“The advantages of my version of the gap theory are that it solves an exegetical problem (viz. reconciling Genesis 1 with the dozen or so other creation accounts that involve conflict); it accounts for an old earth; and it accounts for the carnage that existed before humans ever came around. But I have to confess it runs into a significant problem with the geological and palentological [sic] record. It also runs into problems with the genetic record, since the vast majority of scientists are now convinced there is a rather seamless ancestry that can be genetically traced from the lower primates up to humans. (Miller gave some of this evidence, and it was very impressive).
“When established science and one’s theology come into conflict, it simply means we have more work to do.
“And so, folks, its back to the drawing board for me on the gap theory.”
I will make no joke about Boyd’s growing in godliness since, like his version of God, he’s changed his mind. The truth is, I changed my own mind some time ago on the “gap” theory, but in probably the opposite direction of Boyd. It is true there is little scientific evidence right now for the gap theory or, frankly, for the “day-age” creation theory of the “days” of Genesis as epochs, or for any of the other attempts to keep both Genesis and contemporary science happy together.
I readily agree that the scientific consensus is stacked well against my own view of creation too. I don’t hold it because of the scientific data, and don’t pretend to.
When established science and one’s theology come into conflict, yes, there is more work to do. When Scripture and established science come into conflict, one must ask exactly who “established” the science.
That doesn’t mean that reconciling Scripture and the scientific data is easy. It’s not. That’s why Jesus is raising up faithful pastors and faithful scientists to explore the text and the universe for answers as to how some aspects of biblical revelation fit with what seems to be the case. There are many times when we say “I don’t exactly know” the answers to a scientific question.
But science is precisely one of the places where skeptical postmodernists are partly right. We see through a glass very darkly when it comes to scientific research that is evolving, if you will, all the time. The “Big Bang” once seemed ridiculous to the scientific establishment. So did germ theory and the relativity of space and time. What’s next?
The Bible doesn’t answer all of our questions. But the Bible does give us a narrative of origins completely contrary to the pagan myths of Moses’ day and to the Darwinian creation stories of our own. If the Word of God is indeed the norm that norms all other norms, then that means we see the shifting kaleidoscope of contemporary geological, biological, and astrophysical proposals through the grid of divine revelation, and not the other way around.
That doesn’t settle all the questions, by any means. But it starts the discussion by believing, in order to understand.
In the meantime, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Greg Boyd changing his mind. I just hope he keeps changing. He’s one of the best writers in contemporary evangelicalism. He’s an engaging preacher. I’ve had him on the “Albert Mohler Program” when I’ve guest hosted and found him to be a gracious and fun guy. Some of his views are absolutely true, and long-neglected in the church. But some of his views are dangerous to personal faith and erosive, I believe, of the Gospel itself.
So maybe Dr. Boyd will argue that retrofitting Genesis with the Scientific American doesn’t work. And maybe while he’s at it, he’ll reconsider those doctrines of God, Scripture, humanity, and atonement.
And then I can hand out God at War to pastors and students without having to say, “This is the best thing out there on a warfare worldview in Scripture… but, there’s some really unbiblical content on God, the future, the atonement…”
If not, perhaps Boyd could redact a version of God at War without the heterodox innovations. He might call it the Gap Edition.
