It may seem fair and reasonable for mainstream evangelicals to ask biblical creationists to compromise on literal six-day creation. Indeed, sometimes we are seen as a niche group in an offshoot of the Fundamentalist movement. It is ironic that the Fundamentalists were not exactly biblical creationists.
Again, belief in recent six-day creation is not required for salvation. Accepting theistic evolution (TE) is not a disqualifier, nor is acceptance of billions of years. Those beliefs do show, however, that people are not understanding or have a low view of Scripture.
 |
| Silhouette of group at sunset, Pexels / Min An |
A few years ago, Christianity Today published an article that looks for things we can agree upon that may appear intelligent and reasonable. But note that long age folks and TEs don't have to compromise on their views, and those of us who believe the Bible are the bad guys for not giving in. Scrutiny of the article reveals that such offers to compromise are to be rejected.
We should not be surprised that CT would publish this. They are commonly known as ‘neo-evangelical’, but for some years now, they have become more and more ‘neo’, while less and less ‘evangelical’. In 2015, they published an almost hagiographic article praising the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger; in 2011 they undermined a historical Adam; in 2004 they even called on the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement to attack biblical (‘young-earth’) creation, and published another puff piece on theistic evolutionist Kenneth Miller while at the same time censoring replies that supported biblical creation. . .
Although it's a bit long, it would be in your best interests to read "Can evangelicals agree on ten theses about creation and evolution?" in its entirety.