Re: [asa] Two questions...

Heya Jim,

Some responses below.

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:

> Ah, but you have basically described the (difficult? intractable?) lay of
> the land. Where is it that the reaction to a TE view is most evident. It is
> precisely in the more conservative-leaning and evangelical portion of
> American Christendom. It is less, or even no issue at all in more moderate
> to liberal-leaning segments, including unitarian to be sure, but portions of
> others as well in Anglican, Methodist, and UCC communities, for example.
>

And my experience is that some TEs (Certainly not all - but I'm Catholic,
which has in some-to-large part reconciled a TE outlook with its
conservatism and orthodoxy rather well) don't see defending TE as a goal for
its own sake, but as a means by which to bring a hammer against a more
conservative christian culture at large. Those attempts, in my view, are
what many who are skeptical of TE see immediately, connect TE with
extraneous issues, and draw the line in the sand due to it.

In other words, if the goal is to defend the view that TE is reconcilable
with scripture, then make that the goal. But if the mindset is 'We're going
to tell you TE is right, and if you want to be right too, you have to
sacrifice not only your views on evolution, but on original sin, inerrancy,
gay rights, and these other views, because that's part of the TE package',
sure, there's going to be a harder. And with good reasons too, since one
doesn't necessitate the rest.

>
>
> This looks to me like the same situation as is faced by a younger friend of
> mine who was raised in and identifies with a more conservative portion of
> the Christian community. But he is gay. That presents an almost insoluble
> problem for him. He wants to live in integrity and open fellowship, but that
> has been denied him multiple time in the conservative Christian community.
> He can find Christian fellowships where this is simply not an issue at all,
> but those are all more liberal-leaning (I know, I know, ...I don't really
> like that term, but it is a useful shorthand here...I think). He has only
> found unconditional acceptance in the more liberal fellowships where more
> diversity in perspectives is ubiquitous but uncomfortable to him. He has no
> desire to be a member of a "gay church", just a participative member of a
> conservative-leaning evangelical church that doesn't care about his gayness.
> My impression, ...it isn't going to happen. It's a painful dilemma for him,
> and for those who empathize with him in the face of this conditional
> expression of Christian community. But that is also the lay of the land.
>
> In both cases, a frontal assault, be it cloaked as ministerial or not,
> TE-advocating or pro-gay, is likely to stiffen the resistance, not relax it.
> The responses are coming from a gut response, a defense of the faith, not
> from a place of internalized reason and harmony.
>

As a TE myself, I reject the mindset that those who have problems with TE
are absolutely or even largely not operating with reason. And I'd doubly
reject the unreasonableness charge against those who are not pro-gay. This
is pretty much dead-on the sort of perspective that I think cripples TE
right out of the gates.

For myself, when I interact with OECs or even YECs, my goal is never to get
them to give up their views in exchange for mine. Instead, my goal is vastly
more marginal - showing and explaining why I think evolution reconciles with
Genesis, how it interacts with or even works with more orthodox views about
Adam and original sin, and the number of perspectives (rather than just a
single ultimate one) at work within the 'TE camp' as it stands. It's my own
personal experience, but frankly, it's resulted in a lot of fruitful
conversation. And if the result is that they retain their old views but
accept that a TE view is valid (or even not necessarily invalid), I consider
that a great success.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 7 03:38:09 2009