Re: RATE Vol. II

I want to echo what Merv and Iaian have said. It's extraordinarily
difficult, in my experience, to be a non-YEC in most American evangelical
chuches. For many of us who are part of such churches, abandoning
evangelicalism isn't an option, because we are convinced of many of our core
theological and spiritual commitments. Nor is it an option to confront or
engage faulty YEC thinking on a regular basis, because that quickly leads to
disunity and demolishes ministry effectiveness.

One thing that hasn't surfaced in this discuss yet is the spiritual
dimension of this problem. I'm convinced that it is at heart as much a
problem of spiritual unity as it is of any particular views about science.
The YEC leadership organizations often are spiritually divisive. And the
non-YEC response sometimes can be equally divisive. Have groups like the
ASA and the ACG confronted this with spiritual weapons, namely prayer,
mercy, repentance, and love?

What if we were to schedule a day every month during which every ASA member
covenanted to pray for unity in the church, for blessings on our YEC
brothers and sisters in their everyday lives and non-YEC work, for humility
and grace in our truth-telling, and for the Holy Spirit to move the Church
towards a mature understanding of the Truth of all facets of God's
revelation? What if we were to schedule a meeting of reconciliation, to
which YEC proponents would be invited, and at we would do nothing but
approach God's throne in a spirit of repentance for guidance, healing and
unity? Maybe the YEC leadership wouldn't come, but we would proceed anyway,
and that in itself could be powerful.

On 5/23/06, Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> I was tempted to start this under a new subject thread titled "from the
> trenches", but I don't think it strays too far from the subject of 'age'
> and the ASA's here-discussed question about how aggressive to be with this
> position.
>
> In the spirit of Iain's gentle exhortation, I wish to add a challenge &
> seek advice. Probably, most of you (by your own good design, no doubt) are
> in career positions which limit your contacts with YEC advocates to
> non-professional settings. I.e. you can safely be aggressive about
> 'eradicating' young-earth heresies from Christendom, and in fact, to the
> extent that YEC topics ever come up – you would be required to respond that
> way under the pressure of jeopardizing your career path. (NO – I am NOT
> imputing false motives to any of you here – I am NOT suggesting that the
> only reason you think as you do is for career advance; I agree fully that
> your career would be rightly jeopardized by a YE position on the sound
> grounds that scientific evidence is clearly against it.) But what I'm
> suggesting is that beyond some of your church settings (which is challenge
> enough in its own right) most of you have the luxury of enthusiastic
> aggression at no professional sacrifice to yourselves – a thought not lost
> on your YEC opponents who DO impute false motives to you. As a teacher at
> a Christian school in Ks, I have exactly the reverse pressure of being
> supported by my church (somewhat liberal on this issue), and being
> surrounded professionally by many YEC proponents / tuition paying
> clientele. I do exaggerate my plight some – our school hasn't made any
> formal position statements on this, and my reading is only based on the
> predictably noisier presence of the YECs among us.
>
> And I anticipate your response to me: so make some noise of your own and
> empower any silent ones who think likewise! Easy said. Such boat-rocking
> will have two possible outcomes that I can see. The school will, in a
> backlash, make YEC part of their official faith statement and clean house
> (I go elsewhere). Or enough support for the challenge will materialize
> that the school chooses not to endorse doctrinally divisive positions and
> advises us to defer such questions to family or local church. Meanwhile I
> continue to teach science (in the 'pussy-footing' manner as George would put
> it) by saying 'this group believes… and here's why' and 'that group believes
> … and this is why…' and only staking my own position in all of it if
> pointedly asked. Not exactly a strong stand, and you can impute false
> (job-keeping) motives to me if you wish.
>
> But let me at least make some defense of my hesitations: The YEC has
> historically had the same spiritual objection that they still voice that
> acceptance of geological antiquity leads to acceptance of full evolution
> which leads to spiritual falling away. And while reading Number's book on
> the creationists, I'm not finding many encouraging answers to this
> challenge. Both examples and counterexamples are found in his book -- my
> favorite counterexample being C.S. Lewis who is fairly respected. During
> his prime as a Christian he saw no danger to the faith from evolution –
> though Numbers leaves the impression that he kept it at arm's length. And
> yet Lewis apparently suffered some doubts in his later years, not at all
> because he was impressed by any YEC arguments, but because he was so
> concerned about the rampant materialistic conclusions that he saw so many
> evolutionists embracing.
>
> To some extent, I inherit his concern. My YEC colleagues would not make
> it past the introduction in Numbers' work where he candidly admits that
> after finding his fundamentalist creationist upbringing to be
> scientifically lacking, he "slid down the proverbial slippery slope toward
> unbelief." This adds explosive fuel to the warfare model of science and
> religion, and some (not all) of the examples he so honestly and
> sympathetically follows in his book do as well. Who constitutes the
> 'exception' and who is the 'rule' depends on whose side you're on.
>
> So I am left without a good answer for this challenge. The YEC camp is
> right about ancient earth leading to acceptance of full-fledged evolution.
> (How many of you stopped at believing ancient earth?) We all presume they
> are NOT right about evolution leading to spiritual decline, but the
> challenge is to show that the spiritual mischief stems from YEC heresy with
> its violent reaction to apparent scientific truth – not from the
> scientifically established truths themselves. I know some of you have
> already provided a stellar example of robust faith and soft, loving tongue
> combined with full acceptance of evolutionary thought. – the many authors
> in Keith's 'Perspectives…' come to mind. And some of us need some work.
> If YEC people are to be given good answers, it will have to come from
> patient and loving role modeling that demonstrates that their fears of
> spiritual danger are unfounded. But the sticky thing in all this for me?
> --I'm not 100% convinced myself yet. Hence my lack of good answer for
> them.
>
> --merv
>
>
>
> Iain Strachan wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It does make me wonder if this lack of ethical concern spills over into
> > other areas as well. I have often noted how much certain YEC activists
> > lack
> > love.
> >
>
> Michael,
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here, especially having witnessed
> some of the abusive tirades that Jonathan Sarfati made on TheologyWeb (I
> wrote to AiG who confirmed that "Socrates" is indeed Sarfati).
>
> But it also has to be said that certain of the comments made by certain
> members of this list towards creationists have also been distinctly lacking
> in love (not as bad as Sarfati - but on occasion not far off). In the past,
> I have several times been prompted to point out John 13:34-35, but such
> posts of mine have always been ignored.
>
> Iain
>
>
>
Received on Tue May 23 09:49:08 2006