Re: Living and Worshipping in the Real World

You have described what I think is probably the most effective long-term
approach - akin to being salt and pepper, or leavening. For most
listeners, a simple single conversation cannot be persuasive enough to
abruptly change their mind on matters like these. However, it can be
quite informative for them that other temperate and respectable people
hold to an alternative position, and for reasons they can explain and
which are plausible, particularly if such explanations are offered
without an accompanying demand that they be accepted. This sort of
"witness" is easier to hear - by the fact that you offered the
conversation, the subject is important enough to be mentioned (and
perhaps why); it was offered with low confrontation, outside a context
of absolutes; it sensitizes the listener to future indications that
others hold similar views. This lightly confrontational approach (as
opposed to rhetoric), has a better chance of persuasion in the long run
because it respects the value of conversation, does not drive the
listener into a defensive posture, and leaves the important ingredient
of time to do its work.

I think it's important to keep in mind the rate at which we changed our
minds on important matters such as these.

Thanks, Bill. JimA

Bill Hamilton wrote:

>--- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm wondering if there are others on the list who go to "typical"
>>evangelical-type churches, and how you handle the dissonance between what
>>you see and hear at church concerning faith-science issues and what you
>>think about such issues.
>>
>>
>
>In my church the record is mixed, but there's reason for hope. About ten years
>ago a high school biology teacher, who was in a fight with the public school
>where he taught over his teaching YEC,got together with another individual and
>set an objective to get creationist teaching into every Sunday School class.
>They started with an elective high school class and gave up when there was
>little interest among the students (my son said, "I take biology in school. I
>don't want more biology on Sunday morning") Our pastor at the time hld YEC
>views, but did not claim any scientific charter for them. He just believed that
>YEC was the most straightforward interpretation of the Scriptures. After I
>spoke with him he softened his rhetoric a bit. I even heard him say, "if you're
>a creationist ... " in a sermon.
>
>Our current pastor is an OEC, and as nearly as I can tell the congregation is
>comfortable with that. He is dead set against evolution, saying flatly that the
>genetic code will not permit it. I had a conversation with him last summer on a
>drive to Port Huron (about an hour' drive from where we live) in which I
>explained that I believe in common descent, but can't really be considered an
>evolutionist because I don't believe there is any element of chance involved,
>an he seemed comfortable at least with my believing that.
>
>I've learned through hard experience that there are limits to how much you can
>achieve with the average evangelical. They seem to have accepted the prevailing
>notion that scientific knowledge is "real" knowledge, and therefore, to prevent
>science from threatening Christianity, Christianity must be wrapped in a
>scientific mantle.
>
>Bill Hamilton
>William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
>586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
>"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 23 13:41:17 2006