RE: [asa] Two questions...

There is much of value that you add here, Bill. I like it. And if it were
just the pulpit one were worried about, life would be much simpler, and I
think we could do something like this.

I think the problem that we are struggling with is that to integrate science
and faith (which for all of us means Christianity), they should agree (RTB,
OEC as well as YEC) or be neutral/not incompatible (TE).

Trying to interpret ancient Hebrew, which had a greatly restricted lexicon
compared to our own, set in a culture vastly different than ours, that is
several thousand years in the past...is difficult. Trying to determine what
God is telling us about nature through the Bible in that context is even
more difficult. Trying to get that to reconcile to what we (think we) know
about nature is yet again more difficult.

The reason that we (or at least I) do this, that we struggle so with this,
is that secular humanism and atheism and moral relativism and post-modernism
are ripping our society to hell-bound bits. Evolution, while it may be a
tool that God used, is most definitely a tool that atheists are using.
Meanwhile, Dawkins describes religion as a disease.

We need to figure this out. We need to establish some means of solidifying a
front against the forces of evil. Unfortunately, that front line never forms
cohesively because of the differences that drag us back to our own battle
fronts...with each other.

I agree, the hubris of all is a problem. I humbly state that if one can show
with compelling clarity that a given *minor* doctrinal position of mine is
wrong, then I will no longer adopt it. But there are certain foundational
doctrines that I don't think are or should be compromised. Examined, yes.
But compromised, no. How come?

One of the things that I liked about Bob Russell's chapter was that
statement that faith was necessary. You have to believe. This concept is
seen throughout the Bible, and especially in the red letters. If you take
away that, then you have major problems. And therein lies the issue I want
to look at. Science is not about faith. It is not about belief. It is about
cold, hard, objective, factual evidence. I know this contrast has been
presented many times but it's worth it to hear it again, especially as I am
going to take it a step further.

The degree of scientism (and I don't use that word in its purest sense, that
should be clear from the context) one has vs. the degree of faith/belief one
has affects one's worldview. The worldview is a lens which refracts and
focuses the pure objective data coming into it. It's very hard to adjust the
focus on a worldview, because it is often so much a part of you that you do
not see its focusing activity - it just is. But nevertheless - it is there.
Two people can look at the very same piece of data, see two different
things, interpret it two different ways. And then, when that interpretation
is called into question in a debate - that's when pride steps in. And anger.
And frustration. And *this* further refracts that interpretation.

Now, I've recently seen this in sharp focus (no pun intended, I think). I
saw Frank Tipler speak recently on his book "The Physics of Christianity".
He was speaking mainly on the math/physics components in this talk - to
Physics students. He finished his presentation and was answering questions.
There was one student who just didn't want to believe in Christ at all.
Tipler was talking math, and this kid wanted to press him on theological
issues. Tipler was basically in "math mode". He stated that he had trouble
switching to "faith mode" when very deep into discussion of mathematics...it
was as if it required two different parts of his brain, or so he thought. I
agree, as a cognitive neuroscientist, that would be a different part of the
brain. But my point is here...he was more or less switching worldviews.
While they were not necessarily inconsistent, you have to view the world and
the data in it through a different filter to interpret it in the correct
fashion. Tipler handled the young man well, I must admit I was expecting him
to lose his cool and he didn't.

Now this isn't to say that I agree (or understood) all that Tipler had to
say. It just demonstrates my point above. We all have a Christian worldview.
We all have a scientific worldview. The degree to which we can use them
simultaneously varies. The flavor of Christianity varies, the degree of
acceptance of naturalistic explanations for everything varies, and so these
worldview *variants* (which differ along major theological and scientific
boundaries that are intrinsic to our being, it seems) greatly impact what we
see, how we see, how we interpret, and how we relate that interpretation to
others.

While there is no doubt Truth, both in the Bible and the book of nature, we
may not see it or interpret it clearly or correctly. And because of this, we
must have faith that what God teaches us is Truth. If it doesn't agree with
what we see, then somewhere, somewhen, somehow, there is human error at
fault.

Dick, your post will have to wait for tomorrow - it is certainly
interesting. I do want to read your book.

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:39 PM
To: Schwarzwald
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...

I will offer my few cents and experience here.

By way of background, I am not a TE, nor strictly speaking a YEC. I
lean a little in both directions, and understand somewhat the motivation
of both.

For many years, I was an LCMS Lutheran, but now attend an LCMC Lutheran
church. Don't worry if you don't recognize the distinctives of any of
these groups. It will largely be irrelevant to what I have to say.

A number of years ago, the LCMS in convention passed a recommendation
that God's creation as expressed in Genesis 1-3 be proclaimed more from
the pulpit. What I suggested was that Six Day Creation (a YEC position)
and any other position (e.g., TE) be considered from the perspective of
sin. My specific suggestion at the time was that we are tempted by our
fallenness and idolatry to doubt God's Word. In our implicit or
explicit embrace of positions contrary to His Word we sin. Nonetheless,
that sin ought to be brought to light, confess it, and receive God's
forgiveness in the Blood of His Son. Moreover, in our fallenness and
depravity our understanding and reason can in no way diminish our
desparate need for Christ's Blood. To no other quarter is there safety,
salvation, and certainty.

It is not important here that most, if not all, readers disagree with
this suggestion. What is important is that what is at issue for a
Christian is not YEC or TE, but sin and its covering in the Blood of
Christ. It seems to me that many on all sides of the aisle sin
greviously with regard to the issue of evolution. They sin in their
hubris. For all those who take a side the issue lies close to replacing
Christ as the cornerstone. It is facile to do this. For many the
Scripture comes as one piece, one Word. To threaten the fabric of
interpretation built up over millennia is to threaten the whole. While
for many who embrace the new context that unity had already for many years
been weakened by tradition. Indeed, there is only now, it seems a serious
process of forging an orthodox TE perspective. It is not clear to me, at
present, whether this is possible. What then? Should we discard
orthodoxy?

My earlier suggestion still seems to me appropriate. A Christian is not
distinguished by a TE, YEC, or any such position, but the confession of
sin and the washing in the Blood of Christ. If TE or YEC be raised from
the pulpit, let it be for the sake of our sin and desparate need for
forgiveness. Let TE or YEC be fought over in other venues, as our
vocations call us. Lest it be that TE, YEC, or the like should point to
different gods or different Christs, I suggest we, like the Corinthians,
bear with our brothers and sisters, refraining from eating the flesh
worshipped to idols for their sake.

bill powers
White, SD

   On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Schwarzwald wrote:

> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 8 23:10:16 2009