I have several times seen religious leaders make the unqualified statement:
"You cannot believe in evolution and still be a christian." or, more specifically: "You cannot believe in evolution and still be a (true/good/real) christian."
Their point is based on an understanding of the whole point of (divine) Jesus' birth, life, and death: Jesus did not die for man's sins. He died to absolve mankind of sin. That is, god did not arrange for his only son to hang on a cross in order that you or I could be forgiven for filching that hotel ashtray. He died to wipe the slate clean of mankind's Original Sin (and as a bonus, to provide a mechanism for forgivance of new sins). If you accept the theory of evolution, than you must believe that the stories of Adam and Eve and the Fall and original sin are mythical, allegorical, metaphorical, or anything other than actually true. If these stories are mythical, than the whole story of Jesus is mythical, or at least the part where he is the son of god sent to die on the cross so that mankind could start anew unblemished by original sin. The central creed of Christianity is demolished.
You can certainly still believe in Jesus as a very wise teacher, and even fervently follow his teachings, but that (according to the above mentioned religious leaders) is not being a christian. Muslims do that. Many Buddhists, Hindus, and even atheists do that. So, I think the central issue you raise in this OP is not so much what it means to be a creationist, but what exactly it means to be a christian. Is it valid to say that 'christian evolutionist' is an oxymoron?
™ Version 4.2
