I interpreted her words to mean: [Some people who change their perspective on human origins (1) feel deceived or (2) face abuse or (3) are rejected.]
This makes perfect sense, given that some people moving from any kind of thought camp (scientific, political, religious, etc.) to another can feel/face some/all of these things when they are transitioning.
Christy did not say this is what everyone who transitions faces. She did not say that the former group generally wants the transitioner to experience these things as they move toward the new group. She said, āIf you are one of the people who has experiencedā¦ā
Your take away that she intended to say ānon-Biologos views have evil intentsā doesnāt really have any basis in her own words, which makes me wonder what ingredients you had to put in yourself to cook up that interpretation.
I look back to my teens in which I first came into the church.
Of course at school I was being taught evolution. In church our priest was happy to talk abut Adam and Eve as symbolic and not historical figures. That what they did we all do.
It was taught as parable, rather like Jesus used parables. I donāt need to believe that the father and the two sons in the parable were actual people (although its possible they may have been a family Jesus had got to know sometime in his past). It does not matter if they actually existed or not. its what the story conveys about them abd God that matters. Same with A and E.
it may well be that there were people in the earliest forms of humanity that went astray and so do we. What they did in their disobedience we do in our own different ways. it matters not if they were actual historical people.
I simply pointed out by using the word deception, in your article that it framed your argument in such a way that it gave an impression - āweāre right and literal views are deception.ā
If I am wrong then I am wrong.
Apart from that I enjoyed your article and understood your purpose, but it raised another question.
Apart from Adam and Eve, who and what else was non-literal?
Cain, Abel, Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, the flood. Is all of Genesis an artfully constructed piece of literature? Do the genealogies not stand up to the critique of a modern linguist? Did the writers of Genesis 1-11 want us to recognize their writings as being history, or is it all myth, legend parables or the like?
Well, on one level, I do think YEC is wrong and EC is better. I do think that YEC materials are deceptive because they make claims that are not true and they misrepresent things that are true. I donāt think making that personal assessment or speaking from that perspective is somehow inherently ungracious to people who donāt share my views. Many of my closest and most trusted friends teach their kids YEC views. I do not think they want anything but the best for their kids. I am not accusing them or people like them of anything āmalevolentā or āevil.ā I think it is a real possibility that their kids at some point in the future will feel they were deceived by what they were taught was true once they go away to college and learn some science. Thatās just reality, not an accusation directed at anyone.
In the context of teaching the Bible to my kids, I donāt approach the Bible as an exercise in separating āfact from fiction.ā I donāt think itās a valuable exercise. I teach them that all the narratives are truth from God and itās up to us to figure out what he wants us to learn about God, ourselves, and the world from the stories he gave us. We talk about how the ancients viewed the world and how understanding the context helps us understand the meaning. I will leave the nitty-gritty of textual criticism to their college professors.
Genesis is an artfully constructed piece of literature. There is no demotion or devaluing in my mind involved in affirming that.
Donāt know what that means. I donāt believe any humans lived to the ages recorded in the genealogies. I think it is obvious some numerology is being used.
I think the original writers were telling their history according to their conventions. All histories involve a certain amount of myth-making. (Myth in the literary sense of explaining the events and expressing the beliefs that are fundamental to a particular cultureās self-identity and worldview, not myth in the sense of āmade up, fictional, not true.ā).
I think the authors were more concerned about portraying truth about God and his character so their children and grandchildren could relate to God righteously than they were concerned about setting down a factual account of events so their children could know exactly what happened when.
Hi Aaron,
I have responded to Christy comments.
It was a good article.
Words are important.
To use the word ādeceptionā is not helpful.
For example, when reading and studying say Joseph A. Pipa Jr. or Mark D. Futato or John Collins positions on creation, Genesis, Adam and Eve then reading Temper Longman III (Evolutionary Creationist) I do not believe anybody would say they felt deceived by Pipa, Futato or Collins.
Thanks also for the feedback. We do try hard not to negatively assess the character or motivations of the folks we disagree with. Sometimes no matter how carefully you think you are saying it, you can still give the wrong impression.
As someone who thinks about this stuff way, way less than Christy, you and the others here, I have never heard of Pipa, Futato or Collins. I have read Tremper Longman (on non-science-related topics). But I hear Ken Hamās name constantly from my YEC colleagues. āFelt deceivedā is a perfectly fine phrase to describe how some people have felt, given that some people have used exactly those words to describe how they felt.
I actually found this to be a VERY helpful article.
My son is three, and we have another one on the way. My son LOVES dinosaurs and space. I used to be really stressed about how I was going to explain the Bible and its harmony with science to our children. Iāve read a lot since then and Iāve encountered some very helpful ways to go about this. Now Iām more stressed about how to approach the topic with my children when there are many other Christians who do not share our views on things, including in our church, where they might receive teaching that contradicts our own.
This was really helpful, and I shared it with my wife. Thank you. Resources like this are some of the reasons that BioLogos is so important to me.