It amazes me how one article in this blog has received so much attention long after it was originally written. However, it points out an ongoing tension many Christians still wrestle with, namely, how to reconcile science and faith, a struggle that is played out well in the recently published DayStar Reader referenced in a previous post (which reflects a minority debate within the LCMS.) I would encourage you, if you are interested in such a discussion, to go to the link above and read the comment section. The viewpoints there represent a wide range, each trying to find a way to have the philosophical approach to science (naturalism; especially metaphysical naturalism) reconcile with the message of Holy Writ. However, in the process, my contention is that the seeming reconciliation results in a compromise and an inconsistent hermeneutic. To adopt Evolution 'as is' requires us to let naturalism dictate how we will interpret Genesis, and for that matter, all of the Bible.
While I cannot accept the premises of the higher-critical approach to biblical interpretation, I respect the ultimate honesty that results, even if it ends in a denial of foundational articles of the Faith. Bishop Spong, the liberal Episcopalian prelate now retired, irritated me not so much because of his liberal views that denied the Faith as we know it, but because he remained as a teacher of the Faith within the church. The honest thing, in my opinion, was for him to own up to his denial and find another venue to express it.
Thus, my call is simply for consistency and honesty, even if the end result leaves an uncomfortable tension for some. To walk down the road of Evolution will lead you not to God, but ultimately away from Him since it leads away from His Word and His ultimate authority. For Evolution cannot be questioned (i.e. challenged, especially by the Church), leaving it as an absolute truth not conceded even to God Himself. I'm sorry, but a choice is required here.