A Problem with BioLogos' Approach

@nobodyyouknow, I appreciate your post!

I’m late to this thread and have not tried to read all of it, but I’ve enjoyed the early exchanges here. They challenged me to think back over my experiences with YECs and to consider which of various approaches have worked most productively for me when dealing with the average American conservative in discussing the Bible. As I thought about my experiences, my fingers started recording the following notes. I don’t know if they are worth anybody’s time but, for anybody who decides to endure them, I’m curious if they at all fit your experiences.

I would say that I got off to the best start with the average Young Earth Creationist when I asked them what they thought was the best way to go about properly interpreting difficult Bible passages in general. I just keep asking them questions and agreeing with them as often as I can. Indeed, there is usually much that we can agree on. I usually cite my own background in an IFCA church and tell of memorizing scripture from the KJV Bible. I may even tell them that John Whitcomb spoke at my church and I got very interested in “creation science” and Genesis topics. (I don’t tell them that I eventually changed my position on Young Earth Creationism.)

Once the person decides I’m “safe” and not some “dangerous liberal”, I can usually nudge them a little bit with questions like “But don’t you think we often have to admit that we don’t necessarily know the exact meaning of a statement in the Bible?” and “Is this an area where knowledge can puff up but love for others can be much more important?” This usually builds trust.

Despite the aforementioned questions, the conservative Christian who agrees that we don’t always have the answers will nevertheless usually have a bias towards the idea that the Bible can be always be understood by a True Christian™ who sincerely asks God for knowledge and who has the assumption that the best interpretation of a Bible verse is the “plain and natural reading” that a ten-year-old would understand. They will often insist that if anyone claims that understanding a Bible passage requires special skills and training, then that person must be tainted by “man-made ideas”. Yet, the conservative Christian will also moments later tell me how knowledgeable their beloved pastor is, even telling me that he knows Greek and Hebrew! So this often gives me opportunity to ask for clarification, because I will tell them that I’m confused at whether they think special training is needed in understanding the Bible or whether the meaning of a Bible verse simply requires consulting the nearest ten-year-old. I will ask them, "If understanding the Bible is just a matter of being sincere, praying for God’s “right answer”, and focusing only on “the plain and natural reading of the Bible verse”, why did God give the Church people with special gifts, including those teaching gifts which help us understand the Bible? I’m surprised how often such “conservative Christians” will genuinely pause to reflect and try to sort out how much Bible training and expertise is a good thing and how much is too “liberal” and is “man-made ideas.”

It has been my experience that if I spend time helping the individual to reflect upon their own uncertainties in these areas, they are much less dogmatic and rigid as our dialogue continues and we get down to specific issues like “How do we know if Noah’s Flood was global?” and “How important is it that all Christians agree on the geographical extent of the flood?” I also try to be Socratic about getting the person to agree that TRADITION can play a big role in how we understand the Biblical text. Most will agree that if we have been told all of our lives that some “Biblical idea” is true, it can be difficult for us to change our minds when confronted with new information. (I sometimes use the example of Christians being absolutely certain that “Mt. Ararat” was where Noah’s ark came to rest. Then we look at what the Genesis passage actually says. More abundant misleading traditions come with the Bethlehem story where even many Christians think The Wise Men were three in number and that they visited the newborn king right along with the shepherds, and that this all took place in a stable (even though the Bible only speaks of a manger.)

My point is that getting acquainted with a cordial discussion of these types of matters can go a very long way in encouraging open minds. There are so many non-inflammatory questions surrounding the Adam & Eve chapters of Genesis and asking conservative Christians how they approach them–even while casually walking them through some of the tough questions (e.g., How do you think that Genesis 2 relates to Genesis 1?)–can set the stage for eventually grappling with what the author of Genesis 1 wanted to communicate to his audience and what kinds of things did the people in that ancient culture care about. Did they want a detailed chronology of creation?

I have usually found that if I build those bridges slowly and keep reassuring the person that I’m “on their side” in terms of caring about what the Bible teaches us, they allow me to provide some of the same kinds of “expertise” that their trusted pastor provides them. Yet, to do that I have to tactfully cover a lot of Hermeneutics 101 before we are at all prepared to broach anything about evolution or age of the earth topics.

My main point here is that I don’t think there is any possible shortcut. Someone like Ken Ham usually takes the easy route of using simplistic mantras and playing the “us versus them” game. He also has the huge advantage of false dichotomies. I think we also have to be content with small victories, meaning a lot of one-at-a-time successes in opening minds, not winning over big audiences in a short time by appealing to their prejudices and to science-illiteracy and Bible-illiteracy as so many origins ministry entrepreneurs love to do. Right-thinking is harder to teach than wrong-thinking—and much like the responses to the Gospel, “few there be who find it.”

I’ve found nobodyyouknow’s OP very interesting and it definitely got me thinking. But as much as I think we can do better, and that we must very carefully strategize to reach more Christians with these Biologos concepts, I don’t think we should adopt the tactics of the other side or overly “dumb down” various essentials. There will always be those who insist on a Kruger-Dunning arrogance and they will equate knowledge with being “liberal”. I don’t think that there is all that much that we can do to solve that problem.

That’s some of my rambling thoughts on this topic, nobodyyouknow. Thanks for getting us thinking about an important topic.

5 Likes

And you added the trademark superscript! LOL

And as I’m sure you realized, I include that trademark to make a serious point: a lot of Christians apply the “true Christian” label while giving the impression that they alone own it–or at least are the only ones who are qualified to define it. We are all familiar with how they weave it into their No True Scotsman argument. (“No true Christian believes in evolution/billions-of-years!”) It is easy to just laugh and casually dismiss such remarks----but, in fact, any “addition” to the Gospel is something the Apostle Paul reacted strongly against. He said that if he were to preach ANYTHING beyond the Gospel of the Jesus shedding blood on the cross, “let me be accursed.” I even wonder if we in the American church let someone like Ken Ham off the hook far too easily. He and others of his ilk have succeeded in convincing millions of Christians and non-Christians that rejecting evolution and billions-of-years is essential to being a True Christian™. And as many have stated on this website, that false gospel sets people up for deciding that the Bible is filled with errors and simply can’t be trusted. Belief in a young earth and opposing evolution is not in itself such a terrible problem. But when added to the Gospel, it establishes a major stumbling block which confuses many and sets the stage for rejecting the Gospel for reasons which have nothing to do with Christ’s Good News for sinners. Shouldn’t that alarm us?

By the way, it’s not just Ken Ham & Co. who created these unnecessary obstacles to the Gospel. I can’t help but mention that even some of my favorite Christian conference speakers totally embarrass me when they totally botch questions from their audiences about Science topics which they are totally unqualified to address. This 8-minute video conference excerpt shows Drs. R.C.Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, at their Albert Mohler most smug and . . . well . . . I’ll just say “woefully uninformed.” Frankly, their attitudes and remarks at that conference nauseated me and made me want to hurl:

" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFi8k5IMK0&ab_channel=LaneCh "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFi8k5IMK0&ab_channel=LaneCh

They should stay away from science topics until they educate themselves on even just the fundamentals. (I don’t know how Zacharias and Sproul got through their philosophy courses without learning the differences between the methodological naturalism which Christian philosophers assigned to what became the empirical foundation of modern science versus the philosophical naturalism associated with most brands of atheism.) Notice how R. C. Sproul embarrasses himself—and many of us who have appreciated his writings—by smugly repeating one of his favorite dogmas:

“First of all, it’s[evolution is] not compatible with the Bible. Second of all, it’s not compatible with science.” ---- R.C. Sproul

Arghhhhh!. Back to the original topic before my tangent:

How often has Ken Ham pretended to “clarify” that “I’m not saying that a saved-by-the-blood-of-Jesus Christian who believes in evolution and an old earth will not get into heaven.” and yet minutes later he explains that “If one is going to reject the Book of Genesis, you have set yourself up to mistrust all of God’s Word.” Ham returns to an all-or-nothing false dichotomy which morphs into a works-based salvation where anybody who doesn’t agree with all of Ham’s interpretations of the Bible is “at war with God.” Obviously, a “Christian” who is at continuous war with God and, according to Ham, is helping God’s atheist enemies, is not a Christian at all. So Ham pretends to agree with a faith-based Gospel and then immediately goes back to insisting that a True Christian™is one who holds to AIG’s Young Earth Creationist Statement of Faith. (His angry post, which he wrote after a major homeschooling conference cancelled his speaking engagement because of his inappropriate attacks on other scheduled speakers, clearly defined the problem he and others like him represent. Ham insisted that the other speakers who he had offended by his remarks were basically enemies of the Gospel and the conference had “fired” the wrong person: Ken Ham. ) Is it time that the rest of the evangelical world should speak up—or even publicly congratulate the homeschooling conference for “dis-inviting” Ken Ham–at least to clarify what is the Gospel, if not also to remind people what it is not? Adding to the Gospel is as old as the Gospel message itself and the Church is called to make it crystal clear.

Sorry to belabor all of this, but I think it is bad enough when an untrained entrepreneur like Ken Ham with no significant theological or scientific training [yes, I know he has a kind of bachelor’s degree] misleads millions—but when our big name evangelical PhDs are spewing some of the same nonsense, major damage is being done to the Gospel message without much of the public being told that something is seriously amiss.

11 Likes

I would’ve given two “likes” if I could. Because, in my view, a great number of litmus-test cultural issues could be substituted for evolution, and a great number of Albert Mohler Culture Warriors could be swapped out for Ken Ham, and everything that you have said would still hold true. It too often feels to me that American Evangelicalism has decided to imitate the Pharisees rather than Christ. We (yes, still “we”) strain out innumerable gnats and swallow camels whole. We tithe the tiniest portions of mint, cumin, and dill, yet neglect the weightier matters – justice, mercy, faith. May God have mercy upon us all.

5 Likes

I’ll add my own like to your rant as well, but will still push back a little on the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. No doubt this “fallacy” really is a fallacy in some contexts somewhere (perhaps like the very one you used – usually involving moving goal posts, I suspect). But in general I’ve not been impressed by this as some across-the-board fallacy. Goal posts exist (and rightly so). I’m pretty sure everyone here has them even if they put them around different things and at different places. Was Hitler a Christian? Those who can’t find any redeeming qualities in religion love to trot out the canard that he was (because he claimed to be). And those who object to this are then accused of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. But the fact is, Jesus and the apostles used this all the time – the sheep and the goats – we are known by our love – do we have mercy on those who need it from us? While works do not save us, we cannot get away from the fact that the authenticity of our faith (if we have it) is known by these things, and virtually nothing else (to be totally biblical about it). On the logic of this alleged fallacy, anyone who claims to be a Rhodes scholar must be one just on the strength of his claim alone (never mind whether he actually is or not).

So no … not all claims are true and yes, they must be evaluated on other criteria. Those criteria, biblically speaking, have to do a whole lot more with how people treat the poor and downtrodden, the stranger, the alien, the immigrant, and even their own families. Where Ham and his followers go off the rails is not that they have added to the gospel, but what they have added to the gospel. Their criteria are no where to be found in the New Testament, and they are clearly apostate and have set themselves against the very book (and Person) they claim to revere. We need to urge Ham and his followers to pick up the Bible and start reading it – ALL of it. [I would since soften or even repent of some of these words – “clearly apostate” may have been a bit strong. I don’t want to commit the same sin as that committed against ECs and fall into the trap of questioning people’s salvation. I’m only challenging some of what they choose to add to their foundation.]

Paul and the early apostles did not hesitate to build some good things on the foundation laid (with Christ as its cornerstone) – such as caring for the poor (Galatians 2:10). Paul reveled in the fact that he was exhorted by the other pillars of the church to to this as well … the very thing he himself was also eager to do. So I think we should not hesitate to ask why so-called Christians in this nation or any other have set themselves up against God and his word – what is so clearly taught in so many places (both old and new testaments). Political conservatives (those who will buy into anything as long as it made Obama or liberals seem bad) have a lot of work to do before they will ever be able to get any moral high ground again as far as the Bible goes. They’ve sold out their souls to anti-liberalism. As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord.

couple improved wording edits … [and a somewhat ‘back-pedaling’ edit to the end of my angry paragraph (without deleting any original words)]

1 Like

I remember watching the “Moody Science Films” back in the 1960’s. They are still used to this day for “anti-evolution events” at many churches. So I have a very hard time imagining anyone classifying Moody Bible Institute as a “liberal” institution.

1 Like

A lot can happen in 60 years.

I too was disheartened by Sproul’s, et al. remarks in that video. I look up to all three of those men in some sense as my spiritual mentors (or I did earlier in my walk).

@AdCaelumEo I’m not a Calvinist but Sproul seems to be tracking much closer to the way of thinking I’ve been laying out in this thread, here in this more recent video:
https://vimeo.com/41386833

Seems like he’s leaving room for evolution. “Theologians interpretation might be wrong.”

@Socratic.Fanatic I’ll defer to your knowledge on Moody, I don’t know them as well as you.

My mom is taking classes at Moody right now. It isn’t liberal.

When in 2017, women can’t wear skirts unless they are knee-length or longer, can’t wear yoga pants or leggings on campus, no one can wear shorts or sweats to chapel, and student dancing and going to comedy clubs is forbidden, you are talking about a conservative institution.

2 Likes

Point deferred. :slight_smile:

i concede your concern Jay. Jesus was not a politician, administering people in details Rather, he was a big picture guy. No one likes killing, yet.
there is killing in many arenas which relate to wars by which one group succeed. Humans don’t seem to adapt much by biology into a successful social role. i was reminded that Africans evolved resistance to malaria, making them biologically superior in this regard, but it led to them being more desireable than other slaving opportunities from
Europe,
and again killing is how a group takes land. As homo sapiens took out Neandrathals, As Hebrews invaded Palestine under Joshua, with a lot of killing of existing inhabitans, The european invaders of the Americas ended up killing off existing inhabitants., and possession of lands in the southwest resulting from the war with mexico. That history is old enough to be tame. Maybe it could be translated into original sin, that we got here because of the killing that our ancestors did, and our apparent success to day is a result of our inheritance, which is the spoils of war. It is an alternative understanding for original sin, that does not require a vengeful god, but is clearly a result of ongoing human choices.
So I agree with you Jay, i want to take the conversation back on the theme of how do we understand original sin, if we admit that historicaly Adam as presented, cannot be the father of the human race, and the temptation in the garden was totally rigged, two innocents against a talking, experienced lying snake, faced with a forbidden fruit in the midst of the garden? then an eternally vengeful god. naw it is too much story line, not possibly history, then what do you see as original sin today.

That was exactly my point. My mind is stuck on experiences of decades past, so I’m not a good source for what is happening now.

I too have appreciated Sproul and Zacharias, so I felt extremely disappointed. I’ve often heard them boldly expose their lack of understanding concerning evolutionary biology. It doesn’t so much bother me that they reject evolution. I’m bothered that they haven’t taken the time to learn the basics for why their Christian brethren find the evidence impressive. Moreover, they keep dropping into logical fallacies, such as Argument from Negative Consequences and Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies. To see them meet as a group and talk so smugly–knowing that there is nobody there on stage to challenge them–disappointed me. They know that they have many Christian brethren who could easily answer their challenges.

I’m especially concerned that two of the three men have gotten in the habit of filling so much radio air time that they presume to speak as experts on virtually EVERYTHING. I admit that it is very easy for us sinners to fall into that habit and thing that our expertise extends into fields of which we have no training and expertise. As Beaglelady has said, “I don’t know” should be our reply more often than it is. I so wish one of the men on stage would have said, "I don’t know a lot about the science but I am confident that God as Creator understands it all and that regardless of what we may think about a particular natural process, we can know that God created all for his glory. In the meantime, we must make sure that our differences on these matters do not detract from love and harmony within the Body of Christ and we do not lose sight of our focus in making disciples for our Lord.

It greatly disturbs me that even an issue like whether the Noahic Flood was global or local becomes a source of angry division.

Yes! In that video, Sproul sounds far more gracious and even-handed. And I couldn’t help wonder if the difference was due to the fact that he was sitting next to a Christian who accepts the evidence for a very old earth, Stephen Meyer. Indeed, Sproul’s summation of fallible people interpreting infallible special revelation and natural revelation is much closer to my emphasis on these topics. There was not a hint of smugness in Sproul’s remarks in that excerpt.

No doubt we all can be smug at times when the crowd is with us and we feel brave. These are all too human reactions.

2 Likes

I remember in the 1950’s when dealing with young Bible college students who worked as counselors at our “Bible summer camps”, the only-half-joking rule was that when the boys and the girls sat together at “chapel” or even around the camp fire in the evenings, one had to be able to fit the thickness of a half dozen Moody Monthly Magazines between them.

That’s conservative!

(I also remember that the entire pastoral staff thought that “Moody Monthly” was the very worst name for a magazine, and I got very tired of the frequent indirect and direct references to the same sexist joke based upon it. Didn’t anybody at Moody ever think about that when they named their periodical?)

Clearly I have identified myself as a dinosaur. (“Were you there?” Yes I was.)

3 Likes

Yes, and this was the entire focus of the letter of James.

This time, I will look to the apostle John for guidance:
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. … 9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.

Amen. “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. … For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done."

Yes, that is an actual problem …

1 Like

So how we treat visiting strangers wasn’t mentioned by Jesus?

1 Like

We’re not talking about this here. Politics is off-limits. And yes, it’s a political question.

These days, climate change and evolution are also very political.

1 Like

Absolutely. So although I 100% understand why politics is off-limits in this forum (and I certainly concur with the wisdom of that), Beaglelady nailed it on that one.

Perhaps a good way to define the boundary would be that we avoid political topics which involve specific politicians and parties. Amen to that.

Besides, the older I get, the more the topic of politicians and parties depresses me.

Back to evolution etc…

1 Like