/** recent comments widget code */ /** end of recent comments widget code */

Monday 5 April 2010

Origins and the Pastoral Task: The Priority of Love over Knowledge

This is a guest post by Murray Hogg and is the ninth installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Murray is the pastor of Camberwell East Baptist Church in Melbourne, Australia, and is the Chair of the Victorian chapter of ISCAST. He trained as a Mechanical Engineer, worked in the area of stress and vibration analysis, and then returned to school where he obtained a Master of Divinity at the Bible College of Victoria.He is currently completing a post-graduate thesis on the relationship between the modern philosophy of knowledge and the theology of John’s Gospel.

Evangelicals and the Complexity of the Origins Issue
For some, the question of origins is simple. For Evangelical Christians it’s complex. Evangelicals believe that the origin and development of the universe, including life on earth, is the result of the purposeful act of a benevolent Creator. They also take seriously the Biblical teaching on creation in Genesis and elsewhere. This gives Evangelicals more options on origins than others. It also means more issues to consider in evaluating those options. Evangelicals want to ask questions which others might regard as settled, or even entirely irrelevant. Questions relating to such diverse topics as philosophy of science, theological method, and ethics, to name but a few. Hence the complexity.

Complexity, however, can trouble Evangelicals. It conflicts with their sense that the Christian message is simple: so simple, in fact, that any person might understand it on a straight forward reading of the Bible. So the complexity involved in efforts to reconcile evolution and Christian faith tends to rub against the Evangelical grain. Yet this commitment to a simple Gospel message also means that Evangelicals reject any suggestion that one’s views of origins can ever be fundamental to salvation (see, for example, these remarks by Ken Ham). For Evangelicals the origins issue isn’t so much a question of science versus scripture as one of simplicity versus complexity.

One way of resolving this complexity is to dismiss evolutionary science. This is a popular approach amongst many Evangelicals. But others—particularly those working in the sciences—find this option entirely unacceptable. They accept evolution on scientific grounds and seek to make sense of it in a way faithful to their Evangelical Christian commitments. Despite different responses to evolution, however, there is a shared desire to maintain a critical principle well expressed in Martin Luther’s famous remark: “It is neither right, nor safe, to go against conscience.” Evangelicals disagree so strongly on origins precisely because personal conscience before God is a matter of utmost importance. To compromise on matters of conscience is neither right nor safe.

The Pastoral Task: A Principle from St. Paul
In the face of such conflicts, what role is the Christian pastor to play? How does the pastor responsibly address a topic where Evangelicals take so many different positions as a matter of conscience? Dogmatic pronouncements and disciplinary action can intimidate people to go against conscience, but that’s hardly to be encouraged. On the other hand, teaching the correct view of origins is difficult given that the correct view of origins is precisely the point at issue. So what’s a Christian pastor to do?

Well, I think that Paul’s discussion in First Corinthians gives us solid Biblical ground on which to stand. The Corinthians had written to Paul (7:1) for a definitive word on the divisive issue of meat sacrificed to idols (8:1). But Paul seems to sidestep that question completely. “We know that an idol is nothing,” he writes in 1 Cor. 8:4, “but there is not in everyone that knowledge” (7). Fair enough. Not everybody knows the truth about idols. But if we thought that some solid Biblical teaching on idolatry is in order, Paul surprises us by offering nothing of the sort. Instead of educating the ignorant, Paul directs his remarks to the knowledgeable and he urges them to show restraint despite their knowledge; “if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (13). Paul isn’t concerned with how much we know. It’s the impact of our behaviour on others which he thinks matters.

The Human Condition and Theological Disagreement
Underlying Paul’s discussion is the recognition of a critically important truth (the “T” word: Evangelicals take note!): the human condition, even amongst those who know Christ and his saving grace, is one of ignorance and error—“now we see in a mirror, dimly...now I know in part” (1 Cor 13:12). Indeed, 1 Corinthians is pervaded with the idea that love, not knowledge, is the greater virtue; “we all have knowledge, knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (8:1) … “because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (8:11) … “though I…understand all mysteries and all knowledge...but have not love, I am nothing” (13:2) … “whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away” (13:8). And I might only add that Jesus himself criticised his opponents on pretty much the same point (cf. Jn. 5:39-40; Mat. 23:2, 23).

Now, lest people misunderstand me, I want to make very clear that I am not dismissing matters of truth as unimportant. But, when it comes to the origins issue, can we honestly pretend that there’s any broad agreement as to what the truth actually is? Surely the Christian pastor ought to acknowledge that this is a matter upon which Evangelicals can and do hold widely divergent views? And it’s an abuse, not a fulfilment, of the pastoral calling to behave as if it were otherwise. Here the truth is “we don’t know all the answers”—even if, perhaps, we think we should.

There is a great irony lurking here. Sometimes we become so embroiled in arguments about creation that we overlook a great theological truth that is central to any view of origins: we humans are creatures and as such limited by finitude. The implication? We all have blind spots in our thinking and can therefore never assume the mantle of judgement over others (see Romans 14:1-13). We need, in any case, to avoid falling into a kind of intellectual “salvation by works” where scientific, theological, or even biblical truth become the basis of our standing in Christ. Once we go down that path then we become, as it were, “debtors to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:3) who are allowed no errors at all. Better we avail ourselves of Christ’s grace which is sufficient for all things, errors of belief included.

Conclusion
Such are only a few of the critical pastoral considerations which are often overlooked in the origins debate. There is no shortage of horror stories concerning Christians whose views on origins have made them the target of attack by fellow believers—even to the extent that some have walked away from the church or lost their faith altogether. The clear lesson is that our response to a person’s views on origins can affect their relationship with Christ far more than any error in their theory of origins ever could.

So, regardless of what you think you know about the subject of origins, please try to keep in mind Paul’s rhetorical question: “because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (8:11) Remember that it’s the stronger believer, the one who claims to have knowledge, who should give way to the weaker. Our failure to do so—regardless of where we stand on the origins issue—can have frightful consequences. There are all sorts of issues involved in the origins debate, but we should never allow our views to destroy the faith of others. When we do so, our lack of pastoral concern doesn’t commend us to God, but rather brings us under the judgment of the greatest pastor of all (Mk. 9:42).

20 comments:

JT said...

QUOTE - For Evangelicals the origins issue isn’t so much a question of science versus scripture as one of simplicity versus complexity.

I’m pretty sure many Evangelicals would disagree with this statement – particularly Ken Ham. For them it is precisely science with its anti-God assumptions vs. scripture which is God’s Word.

But I agree with the overall thesis of this essay and how we should conduct ourselves as Christians.

Martin LaBar said...

Thanks. You are right. Forgetting origins, we evangelicals want, and expect, things to be simple. That may be our most serious problem. (I'm thinking of end-times here.)

James F. McGrath said...

I appreciate the point you've made here, although I would note one "exception" to Paul's principle. Paul considered neither circumcision nor uncircumcision to be what matters, and considered observing days and eating or abstaining from certain foods to be of secondary importance. But in Galatians, he stands strongly against the attempt to essentially impose one practice on others. And I think that principle is relevant to this topic. We should certainly love and accept believers who are young-earth creationists. But should we not follow Paul's example in opposing attempts to impose this on others as though it were the Christian stance?

Moses said...

"But should we not follow Paul's example in opposing attempts to impose this on others as though it were the Christian stance?"

Good words James.

Re: "Remember that it’s the stronger believer, the one who claims to have knowledge, who should give way to the weaker. "

I have heard this same argument used by evangelicals on the issue of drinking alcohol - to the point that we essentially went back to Prohibition - nobody drank period. Those who did - did it secretly and the church missed out on an opportunity to teach & model responsibility, moderation ( and celebration..!) Perhaps the better approach would be to help our weaker brothers become stronger. Wouldn't that be the logical solution? But Pastor Murray is right, our approach and attitude could completely derail our efforts to strengthen our weaker brother. Love trumps all.

gingoro said...

Murray
Good to see you posting here, I have missed you over on the ASA blogs.

Except for possibly some of the fundies I do not think that the issue is complexity of the evolutionary origins storey vrs the Genesis storey.

It seems to me that the issue is the the impossibly high standard on inerrancy that some hold. Reading Genesis in a straight forward manner results in the standard YEC interpretation, I often see it as a kind of folk YEC with people not educated in the sciences. Plus what does one do with Adam and Eve and the fall are real problems for many. In terms of inerrancy, I have read discussions of why pi as measured today is not exactly 3 based upon the measurement in the old testament. Suggestions of a rim that was being measured or maybe the geometry being used was spherical and just right to make pi have a value of 3 seem impossibly far fetched to me. My take as an engineer is that 3 is good to one figure and that is often good enough for practical use but that does not seem to satisfy some of them. In any case the bible is not a science text to me.

In your question about Paul I wonder who is the strong one? The YEC who claims they are right and have the authority and that ECs are strong heretics, so get out. I do not ever recall any EC taking such a position.
Dave W

Murray Hogg said...

Hi JT,
Thanks and greetings, JT.

For Evangelicals the origins issue isn’t so much a question of science versus scripture as one of simplicity versus complexity.

When I originally wrote this, I prefaced it with something like "It seems to me that..." to show that this "simplicity thesis" is really a judgement call on my part.

It might help if I offer a couple of clarifications;

First, the simplicity thesis is a generalization which arises out of my experience with people inside and outside the church. It isn't meant to apply at the individual level.

Second, it's helpful to distinguish the subject matter (evolution) from the issue (people’s desire to maintain what is theologically valuable).

My view is that the average Evangelical simply isn’t equipped to assess the scientific merits of the evolution/creation debate and so they make their decision on other grounds. So although the argument is presented in terms of science, I think many accept it because it allows them to maintain theological simplicity.

So, remembering that I’m offering a generalization about people who aren’t experts in the scientific data by a long shot, let me suggest this as a general rule;

Those we might call "grass roots Creationists" certainly believe they reject evolution on scientific grounds and they certainly believe there is a conflict between science and scripture.

However, when we consider that the vast majority of these folk aren't familiar with evolutionary science it should be clear that something other than an analysis of the science is driving their rejection of evolution.

In my view this "something other" is the desire to maintain a simple Gospel message. By rejecting evolution they can avoid the theological and exegetical complexities that evolution entails.

Note that I don't intend to imply any dishonesty on anybody's part here. As I said above the simplicity thesis is a generalization. We all have priorities in life, and I mean no disrespect to Creationists in suggesting that their priorities don't include reconciling evolutionary science and Christian faith.

Murray Hogg said...

Hi Martin,

Quote: Forgetting origins, we evangelicals want, and expect, things to be simple. That may be our most serious problem.

I don't want to put words in your mouth here, Martin, but whilst desire for simplicity can be a problem, that's not to say that simplicity is a misguided priority. Let me explain.

There is good biblical warrant for the view that the Gospel is simple. Simpler even than most Evangelicals allow, I'd say. One only has to look at Jesus rejection by the theologians of his day to see that the Gospel can be too simple for some! Thus;

"... not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”" (1 Cor 1:26-31)

So you see that making simplicity a priority is not necessarily misguided?

However, over the years believers have learned that while the gospel is simple, the implications of it aren't always so. Take the notion of the Trinity, for instance. It's simple to believe and confess that Jesus is the Son of God. But try and explain how that gells with our commitment to monotheism? Tricky...

I think part of the answer to this is to understand that while God's demands on us are few (His yoke is easy and his burden is light-Matt 11:30) still sometimes His mysteries are great (sometimes not even lawful to utter-2 Cor 12:4).

Now, clearly there's a broad spectrum between these two end points. We had thought we knew where the issue of origins lay. But then came evolution and clouded the picture considerably. Simplicity is good, but it's only when we insist on simplicity when it might not be merited that it becomes a problem.

Murray Hogg said...

Hi Moses and gingoro (good to hear from you again!),

I hope you don't mind if I take your responses together as I think gingoro identifies an important point which helps resolve the problem identified by Moses.

Moses points out that this argument about giving way to the weaker believer has been used to impose views concerning alcohol thereby loosing the opportunity to teach something better. And let me say, I heartily agree.

But then gingoro asks an interesting question which it pays to take seriously: who precisely is the strong one here?

I'd like to cite something C.S.Lewis's The Screwtape Letters which I think is relevant here;

We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials—namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low” churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high” brother should be moved to irreverence, and the “high” one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his “low” brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility. C.S. Lewis, “Letter XVI” in The Screwtape Letters: Letters from a Senior to a Junior Devil (London: Fontana, 1958), pp. 84-85.

I think this is a delightful picture: Christians on both sides of a position falling over themselves in an effort to accomodate the "weaker" believer!

So it's not, as Moses seems to fear, a case of evolutionists (or drinkers of alcohol) having knowledge and so having to compromise for the sake of the ignorant. After all, YEC's generally claim that they themselves have knowledge (i.e. that evolution is false) and that the faith of those who accept evolution is defective.

So, you see, how Paul's teaching here has a delightful consequence: as soon as we admit that a belief is unessential (not "unimportant" but "unessential") then we have immediately made the issue a secondary one in which the stronger believe should give way to the weaker.

But, delightfully, the "stronger" believer is always the one who claims to have knowledge. Who, then, is the weaker believer to whom we ought to condescend? Well, the simple answer to anyone reading this is that if you think you know anything whatsoever about origins, it's certainly not you!

RBH said...

Murray Hogg wrote

But, delightfully, the "stronger" believer is always the one who claims to have knowledge. Who, then, is the weaker believer to whom we ought to condescend? Well, the simple answer to anyone reading this is that if you think you know anything whatsoever about origins, it's certainly not you!

By "condescend" do you mean "give way," as was the phrase in the immediately preceding paragraph? Or do you really mean "condescend" with its pejorative connotations?

Murray Hogg said...

Hi RBH,

Good question! No pejorative implications implied here! Indeed, "condescension" in the pejorative sense is exactly the wrong attitude to take.

What I'm calling for is having enough respect for others that we ask, not what is important to me, but what is of greatest benefit to them in terms of their relationship with God.

Here I think it helpful to ask; what can I do for, or say to, this particular person, at this particular point in time, to draw them closer to God? What, in short, is edifying for them?

Putting our own priorities, regardless of how strongly held, on hold and asking how we by our words and deeds can build-up our fellow believers, reach the unsaved, and promote the glory of Christ and his Kingdom, this is what I mean by "giving way."

P.S. If I was looking to preach this, I'd probably take Philippians 2:5-6 as my text. Just as Jesus laid down his rights for our sake, we should lay down our rights for others. Or perhaps I could take Luke 17:33? Or Romans 12:18? Or James 3:17-18? Or, well, you get the picture. :)

Steve Martin said...

Hi Murray,

I really appreciate this article. (I wish this article could be mandatory reading for all Evangelical pastors!). Many of us that are ECs need to reflect if / when our conversations around evolution are actually being counterproductive for someone’s faith – or worse destructive. And probably re-reading 1 Cor through each time we enter the conversation would be a great idea.

But I have a question, (really a repeat of James’ comment earlier). I see the parallel of a 1st century Christian refraining from eating meat offered to idols & a 21st century Evangelical EC refraining from promoting evolutionary science so as not to offend a brother or sister in Christ. However, there is another example of Paul’s that may be applicable here – his passionate opposition to “adding anything to the Gospel” – specifically following Jewish laws (eg. Gal 2 verses 11 and following). And even though Ken Ham, to his credit, denies that YEC beliefs are a salvation issue, he is implying that it is a necessary belief for a mature Christian. So, if Ken Ham were in the 1st century, he might be saying “Yes, you can be a Christian without following all these Jewish laws, but you really should be following them because that is important to be a mature follower of Jesus Christ – and we should be sending out missionaries with their circumcism knives to correct those Gentile believers in Asia Minor”. This leads to a situation where one may have to choose between “offending the weaker brother” and discouraging many others from considering the gospel. (“I need to be circumcised and follow all these wacky Jewish cleansing ceremonies and guidelines to follow Jesus? Hey, that doesn’t sound like good news to me!”).
In short, some of us (like Terry in his earlier posts) can take the patient approach and avoid talking about the science / faith dialogue for long periods of time. But others of us may not have that luxury since our Churches are doing something (eg. Aggressively promoting the Truth Project) that may actually be hindering the gospel.

Steve Martin said...

ALL: Something really weird is happening in blogger - looks like it lost the first 3 comments in this thread. So, insert the following into your mental conversation PRIOR to Moses' comment starting with "But should we not ... "

== comment #1 =====

JT said:

QUOTE - For Evangelicals the origins issue isn’t so much a question of science versus scripture as one of simplicity versus complexity.

I’m pretty sure many Evangelicals would disagree with this statement – particularly Ken Ham. For them it is precisely science with its anti-God assumptions vs. scripture which is God’s Word.

But I agree with the overall thesis of this essay and how we should conduct ourselves as Christians.

== comment #2 =====

Martin Labar said:

Thanks. You are right. Forgetting origins, we evangelicals want, and expect, things to be simple. That may be our most serious problem. (I'm thinking of end-times here.)

== comment #3 =====

James F. McGrath said:

I appreciate the point you've made here, although I would note one "exception" to Paul's principle. Paul considered neither circumcision nor uncircumcision to be what matters, and considered observing days and eating or abstaining from certain foods to be of secondary importance. But in Galatians, he stands strongly against the attempt to essentially impose one practice on others. And I think that principle is relevant to this topic. We should certainly love and accept believers who are young-earth creationists. But should we not follow Paul's example in opposing attempts to impose this on others as though it were the Christian stance?

Moses said...

re: "ALL: Something really weird is happening..."

I think those missing comments just couldn't stand up to the power there is in "Moses Said" :-) ( sorry, couldn't help but poke a little fun at my own name...)

Murray Hogg said...

Hi Steve,

This leads to a situation where one may have to choose between “offending the weaker brother” and discouraging many others from considering the gospel.

It's important to understand that "offense" in this context means something stronger than simply upsetting somebody. The Greek word is skandalizō which suggests enticing somebody to actually betray Christ.

This is why Paul was markedly more forceful with Peter in Antioch than he was with the believers in Corinth. Peter was acting in a way which could "skandalizō" the believers. At worst those eating meat sacrificed to idols might cause others to be "offended" in a weak sense-which is normally the way people take the term, by the way.

I think if we were to boil down all of Paul's writings on this point then we might get something like this: "If somebody acts in a manner which you don't like, then so what? The issue isn't whether you like it, the question is whether they are faithful to Christ: and that's not for you to judge. BUT if anybody acts in a manner which causes others to stumble, to betray Christ, that's absolutely unacceptable and should be opposed."

I hope that the application to Ken Ham, the Truth Project, or whatever else is clear. The question isn't whether people find something a bit upsetting, the question is whether it constitutes an instance of "skandalizō."

If it does, then we have not just the right, but the obligation to act. Not in such a way that we ourselves engage in an instanced of "skandalizō" but in such a way that we promote the cause of Christ.

Note, interestingly, that this means sometimes opposing people who advance positions with which we actually agree! It's not a question of the content of a position, but the effect created in affirming it. "skandalizō" is always bad as it is, by definition, harmful.

Obviously, in all of this, we want to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matt 10:16) and the test is whether people are being attracted to, or repulsed from, Jesus Christ.

Kent said...

A refreshing change to remind us that when a pastor teaches God's Truth it should be brought with a balance of Conviction and Humility.

It seems your post could be equally applied to pastors of any origins persuasion YEC, ID PC, EC.

My Question: Is there even a place for pastoral teaching on origins from the pulpit? It seems you are suggesting the pastoral approach should be, with regard to Genesis, to only teach---with conviction---the theological truths and, at most, acknowledge--with humility---that various views on origins are held by sincere believers.

BTW I do agree your complexity-simplicity analysis is an important way of looking at the problem. Perhaps, also, the Christian message is not as simple as Evangelicals tend to present it.

Murray Hogg said...

Hi Kent,

You include a few good themes in your remarks! As I have something to say on almost every point, I'll have to save space by not reproducing reproduce your comments.

On teaching truth with humility, I can't agree more. Somewhere in the origins debate we seem to have overlooked the fact that faithfulness to Christ means more than just correctly interpreting Genesis 1-3. It also requires displaying a Christlike attitude. Christ isn't honored when we hold the right doctrine but affirm it in the wrong way. Personally, I'd take Christlike character over sound theology any day!

I'm very glad you spotted that my remarks apply to every perspective in the origins debate. I've noticed that accusations of arrogance are directed at all sides - which suggests that all sides perhaps have something to think about. The one thing I'd really like to change, if I could, is to get believers to put into practice Jesus' call to "first remove the beam from your own eye" (Matt 7:5). If find that keeping in mind my own capacity for arrogance, hypocrisy, self-delusion, etc, is a good place to start in this conversation.

Is there ever a place for teaching on origins from the pulpit? Well, this requires a very nuanced answer. Let me say that my greatest reservation with creationists is that they seem to me to obsess on the science of Genesis and almost totally ignore the theology. This is tragic, in my view, because Genesis 1-3 is such a theologically rich text. That being the case I'd say this: there is nowhere near enough expository preaching on Genesis 1-3 and far too much concern with the science. I won't comment on what others should do (as their circumstances may vary) but for myself - I'd be happy to preach on the theology of Genesis 1-3, but would never use the pulpit to advocate for a particular position on the science. The fact that I'm not qualified in the life sciences just adds to my reticence. I'm not qualified to pronounce on the science and would avoid doing so.

I'll only add to this that there is one other time when preaching on the origins issue would be important and that's when it's become a contentious issue within a congregation. But here I wouldn't be preaching on the origins issue as such, but on maintaining Christian behavior in the midst of contention. In that respect, my contribution to this blog is, in a sense, teaching on the origins issue, but it's teaching on "method" rather than "content."

On the complexity-simplicity analysis, I'd have to say that I'm not too troubled by the suggestion that the basics of the Christian gospel are simple. It's the refusal to go beyond this simplicity that worries me. Paradoxically, I've found that working through the complexities of the evolution issue actually brings me back to a pretty simple Gospel - "simplicity the other side of complexity" as Wendell Holmes Jr. called it. Problem for most Evangelicals is that they're afraid to engage with the complexities of the issues, and so miss out on the wonderful discovery that the issue of origins isn't really so problematic after all. Whether we evolved from apes or not, we're still saved by placing our trust in Christ. I'm amazed by two things: that people think the origins issue is so obviously simple, and how people think ones view of origins, however complex, has any bearing on the the simple truth of the Gospel!

gingoro said...

Creation Fall and Redemption Wall Hangings
I have just opened up a Flickr group that contains a little bit of my wife's art and maybe a few pictures that I have taken but she is the artist and I am just the "patron" or financial and moral support. People can join as members but no comments or submissions are allowed. Comments maybe later.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/majlens_art/

In the creation series note that the new heaven and earth is represented in a minimal fashion on the right by a thin gold line.

There is a small reference to a none strictly literal interpretation of Genesis at least as I have such presented. Lets see if anyone finds it. This seems to be a good way to get the message across without hitting people in the face. It seems to me at least to be in the same spirit as Murray has so ably talked about.

Jimpithecus said...

Murray, you said:

Let me say that my greatest reservation with creationists is that they seem to me to obsess on the science of Genesis and almost totally ignore the theology. This is tragic, in my view, because Genesis 1-3 is such a theologically rich text.

This has been often the perspective that I encounter. A few years back, I began to subscribe to the ICR publication "Days of Praise" because I thought it would give me good scriptural insight and provide me with a way of keeping up with Bible reading during the week. I cancelled my subscription shortly thereafter because, despite having scriptural teaching, the publication was laced with YEC teaching that, in my mind, was inappropriate for the purpose of the publication. I wanted to learn more about how to best walk with God, not that the earth was created at a certain time in the past. It was very maddening. For that organization, origins teaching has become so central that it cannot be extricated from the rest of scriptural teaching. As my mother would say about them "they can look through a keyhole with both eyes."

I think that Steve is correct, though, that we need to be careful that we do not cause other Christians to stumble. This is why I hold organizations like the ICR in such low esteem (couldn't quite bring myself to use the word "contempt") because I know of Christians that have been influenced by these organizations to the extent that any evidence presented to the contrary would shatter their faith.

As I think I said in another comment somewhere, when people in my church approach me and ask about origins questions or other questions dealing with science, my typical response is something like "tell me about your faith in God first" or "are you sure you want to open that door?" I have to be convinced that it is important to them and won't damage their faith.

Steve Martin said...

Sorry, just getting back to this conversation – too many commitments right now.

Moses: Oh, by all means, make fun of your own name. That may take some of the attention away from my own (I just started high school when the movie “The Jerk” came out … not a good start!).

Anyways, the comment problem seems to have solved itself (appears others using blogger were having the same problem for awhile).

Murray: Thanks for your comments on "skandalizō” .. that was very helpful. It probably is as good an answer that I’ve seen to my Dialogue, Debate, Silence, or Confrontation: How do we approach the topic of Evolution? question.

Jim: Love your "tell me about your faith in God first" or "are you sure you want to open that door?" strategy.

gingoro said...

The tiny bit in the wall hanging that is contrary to some versions of YEC is that there are carnivorous animals present around about the time that Adam and Eve are shown in their innocence and joy.

On the 3rd panel is a woman in a wheel chair that goes to our church thus showing that not all the effects of evil are resolved in this life. Sanctification has both a hear and now aspect and a not yet aspect. The happy little ballerina represents my wife as she would have liked to be. However her father kicked her with his combat boots when she was a toddler and was singing and dancing. Thus she can't dance to this day.
Dave W