Re: [ASA] Yes -- the YECs are still winning (earlier on....)e: [asa] The Daily Me

Jim Armstrong wrote:

>>>The YEC issues are one point of divisiveness, but [the H word] is
arguably more damaging in this regard in our time, particularly with the
younger generations (cf the book "unchristian", co-authored by one of the
Barna Group principles). >>>

True, the H word does not help matters either. Perhaps for people not
raised in an educated family in science, idle use of the H word may have
more of an impact. In my case, both my grandfathers were astronomers (one
who also did geology) and my father was one of the many engineers and
scientists who transformed NASA's projects into realities. For me at
least, YECs (all Christians to my mind at the time) and their H word only
amplified the inaneness of hypocrisy of their position. If they couldn't
get it right on something so far beyond question, "H" only made it more
laughable. (In recent years, I have come to know some YECs, and I do see
that they are not stupid. I have also come to discover that such blindness
and hubris is not unique to creationists: best to say that we should all be
careful).

"There appears to be something wrong in a very foundational way, based on
the way community (singular) is not built, but fragmented. That
fragmentation - not only present, but fostered in the "Kingdom" - seems to
be a largely ignored but important symptom of something amiss. There seems
to be some truly transformational element missing or weak in the way we
traditionally do things, and in particular what we teach our children,
whether overtly or by default. I know there are long traditions involved
here, but traditions are likewise man things. I think it is safe to say not
only that "many churches are already well on the decline", but that
virtually all mainline churches (denominations) are on the decline. Somehow
the revolutionary, and simple (a la Micah 6:8 as reflected in the sermon on
the mount, for example) seemingly somehow attractive messages of Jesus as
they were in his time, seem not to have been faithfully extended forward.
One might argue that the institutions, buildings, and praxes are evolved
things that on their dark or unattended-to side have instead masked,
overcomplicated, altered, and diluted the essential Jesus."

Even the reformation, including its most necessary points, had a certain
basis in politics. The kings and princes wanted greater autonomy from
the Catholic church. Both Calvin and Luther needed the protection of those
powerful princes. We would be so much the less without their
writings. Their original writings are really are worth taking the time to
read.

The division (protestant revolution) did drive the Catholic church toward
reformation. Even then, it seems largely trapped in its own
traditions. Should Calvin and Luther have knuckled under and put up with
the slow pace or reform in the Church? I cannot say we would be the richer
for it; though we can never know now.

I would say it is not so much that we should have one church and we should
be one big happy family. We are going to fight and quarrel because we are
imperfect human beings. But we have to learn to watch ourselves because
sometimes God sends people who annoy us for good reason. It is the
universal and thoughtless suppression of differing views that seems to do
the greatest damage. It is when politics and power are put in the hands of
leadership and wrongly used to needlessly suppress views that differ. The
Church would have executed Luther and Calvin had they had their way.

Perhaps this is largely your point about something being amiss. We have to
watch out when we hold the sword and the truth. In this way, scientists
too, should watch themselves. It isn't so unusual to have the impression
the some of the scientists think that the world will somehow become perfect
if only that thing in our brains is lopped out. Hmm, something clearly
having a very strong selective advantage cut out. Did I miss something in
my molecular evolution class? I don't think I would trust many scientists
to make good politicians with thinking like that.

So, yes, something is amiss. I think we have to learn to think carefully
about what we believe. We need to let God challenge us and try to see his
challenge as something important to learn from. If we do that, we gain from
his teaching. If we chose the wide and easy road (crush, suppress,
annihilate), we rebel against his merciful teaching. If YECs leave me
alone, I have little reason to hammer them over the head with evolution.
Why should I?

by Grace we proceed
Wayne

If YEC was

   How long would things have gone on the same way without the schism?

Sometimes, I guess there really isn't an answer.

Calvin did seem to understand to keep himself out of the science issues and
stick with theology.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 4 14:31:53 2009