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

Well, I can report some good news, in this light.
I sat at a dinner table two nights ago with a denominational mix of
folks who were talking seriously and organizationally about setting
aside denominational distinctives to get something important and urgent
done in terms of rubber-hits-the-road ministries. Specifically, the
conversation was about creating greater support to existing faith-based
ministries that were doing some "social ministries" right to strengthen
them and lay the groundwork for more widespread cooperation in the
future. I think, though, that the impetus was coming via a
para-organization, but with receptive ears among the several
denominational folks at the table.
JimA

dawson wayne wrote:
> 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 18:53:00 2009