I think I’ve actually heard the term: ‘exvangelist’ used.
Even that phrase is no longer alarming to me, at least due to U.S. evangelical culture here. In fact I’m probably even relieved to hear that people are - because odds are they are just rejecting the same things that I too reject: movements that use ‘christianity’ as a political mascot, but have no use for any real Christianity or any actual biblical literacy.
I guess the answers in the questionaries go deeper: these people reject the God of Christianity, not only Christian movements and churches. Some are just atheists but many search for spiritual guidance from movements that are some sort of sidetracks of eastern religions or even old pagan beliefs. New Age and comparable stuff where you are your own personal ‘god’ that only needs some guidance from spiritual guides and correct type of ‘good vibrations’ or something comparable. A small minority has joined old pagan movements that may follow ancient practices of worship or reverence towards spirits or ancestors. It demands an altered mindset from the believers wjo discuss with these people about what they believe.
Luckily, many of these spiritual seekers have experienced how the alternative belief systems cannot fill their spiritual needs or give internal peace. That has made Christianity and especially Jesus a potential answer to their search.
For me personally, it’s not been the teaching as much as it’s been the utter failure of male Christian leaders to be good people. It’s a huge crisis of trust. The hits keep coming. At some point you just don’t recover from all the betrayals.
Let’s look at the sentence I’ve put in BOLD:
”So from the very beginning, the endeavor is to make evolution “fit” their special creation, sole progenitor of humanity, and original sin transmission ideas by proposing something miraculous that “science cannot disprove.”
It seems to me that the exact opposite is being attempted! GAE re-works to “fit” Biblical Interpretation to make it possible to accept current Evolutionary theory:
Genesis 1 and 2 can no longer be interpreted as a single narrative…. one chapter
is a story about the pre-Adamites. The other chapter is about the special creation
of just 2 humans raised in divine laboratory called “the Garden”.
Instead of understanding Adam/Eve as the ONE “Universal Common Ancestor”,
he becomes just ONE of the multiple “UCA”s that any population might have.
Computer simulations support scenarios where instead of looking for surviving
genomes (halved with each generation), the “genealogy” of any individual can
rapidly spread (geometrically increasinig with each generation).
The time frame from 4000 BCE to 10000 BCE is relevant because not
only does it allow a favored timeframe held by YECs, it also disconnects Adam
from the issue of Evolutionary processes versus the Pre-Adamite human
population which evolutionary science clearly tells us emerged by means
of current evolutionary theory.
Once these 3 points are established, all sorts of related YEC ideas have
to be tweaked in order to obtain consistency. GAE doesn’t even require
Original Sin. And the motivation to take the Global Flood literally simply
can die away.
G.Brooks
A study I read a while back stated that the strongest factor for church attendance was whether your mother took you to church when you were a kid. If this is the case, then it is easy to see how a decline in church attendance can snowball over generations. Like you said, this decline will only be hastened by churches who tie themselves to political ideologies over theology.
I’m not interested in it. I don’t have the bandwidth to engage on this again. I hope you find someone else who feels like discussing it.
No worries.
I cannot comment on Swamidass as I have never read him but for me and a few Catholics I know articulating this possible interpretation, it is not a “theological game” to think there are two books for learning about the world, nature and science. As St. John Paul II said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” Christians generally think the Bible is inspired by God and accurate interpretations of what it teaches are true and correspond to reality. I think they also believe accurate scientific descriptions reflect how God orders the world. Some have been caught in a culture war and have rejected some of what most scientists consider well evidenced. But for the rest of us, it is only natural where science and belief overlap, to attempt to find common ground. It would be completely irrational not to do so given these starting assumptions.
This is also not proposing something miraculous that is new in my mind. It is not multiplying miracles. Maybe Swamidass does. I can’t comment. But the same reasons or facts that led to the Church’s belief (and just about most or all Jews in the ancient world as far as we can tell) in a literal Adam and (for Christians) original sin (or some type of fall) have just been modified with a set of slightly more complicated reasons or facts. Nothing miraculous has been added here beyond what the Church has already believed for thousands of years about souls, original sin and Adam. The Church has understood the days of Genesis need not necessarily be 24 hour periods for a long time.
What may be described as proposing new miracles I see as simply accepting what the vast majority of Christian people, the Church and Christian organizations have believed to be true for almost two millennia. Modern science can modify our beliefs or turn them completely upside down but GAE Christians are not inventing Adam or miracles that have not already been a part of the Church for thousands of years. He shows up in our sacred scripture. The GAE modifies how we understand the first couple in light of what we have learned from modern science. That is healthy and appropriate. Rejecting science out of hand is the problem. Modifying our views in light of it is appropriate. That shows one is able to accept new evidence and change their views. Many here do the same in rejecting a historical Adam.
We should not confuse the interpretation of a mythical Adam with exactly what the Bible or God says which some seem to be doing. I should also not confuse my thinking that Adam was a real person with exactly what God or the Bible teaches. I may forget this at times but the certitude (intended or otherwise) that seems to be conveyed by some of our responses should be avoided. The mythical Adam position is a fallible human interpretation just the same as a GAE or any other version. Since the GAE does not have any scientific problems and is quite consistent with things like Biblical genealogies (as in Luke’s who thought he was writing history), traditional Church teachings, and scripture’s general belief it is describing real people throughout, the mythical position is no longer the only of chief option available for science conscious Christians. That foundation which has lead to so much (premature) confidence has been shown to not be necessary. So I suggest the widespread presumption of a mythical Adam or denial of a primal couple that had consequences for the rest of humanity should be tempered a bit. We should not confuse our certitude in science with certitude in thinking scripture does not teach Adam was not an actual person whose actions had a dramatic effect on the world. It does not follow that evolution rules out a traditional Biblical portrait. Wooden literalism of Genesis 1-11? Absolutely ruled out. A more modest position on Adam and Eve that recognizes the mythical elements of the Bible but accepts the Genealogies and a simpler reading of Paul? Some comments almost seem to approach the issue like it is impossible Adam and Eve were actual people. It’s almost like we forget this is a minority position and generally new one. The same reason so many Christians subscribe to a localized flood is why they might want to accept the GAE. We don’t all share the notion that the Bible is just some form of literature teaching truths devoid of history. I would say what the Catholic proponents of GAE do with Adam and Eve is no different than what theistic evolutionists do with a mythical Adam: taking a simple “set of facts congruent with a doctrine to a less simple set of facts congruent with the same doctrine” (that the Bible teaches truth about the human condition). Jay does this in reimagining the fall as pertaining to a human population ~60,000 years ago.
I think doctrine is more important to countless Christians than brute scientific facts. It is to me and I love science and I make a living teaching it. Do we need to start a “Doctrine is good” initiative.
So if these Christians didn’t feel biology (evolution) and geology (age of the earth) were a threat to their beliefs and could accept them, this would not help them be more receptive to science in general? I’m not sure how I not to read that as a veiled ad hominem argument based on your contrary views on immigration or diversity, equity and inclusion?
Vinnie
That is not a strength but a problem I see in any model that does not advance hylomorphic souls that distinguish between biological humans from theological or metaphysical humans. I haven’t read the work but maybe you can clarify. So when A&E fell, did those outside the garden fall? The punctiliar understanding of sin and death it not consistent with the mere notion that two ancient people are the genealogical ancestors of all people. That belief comes with other beliefs that are not very negotiable to many Christians.
Vinnie
edited: word change/typo]
It is sad that so many have failed.
I do not know if it plays a stronger role in America because of the greater individualism there. Small churches are built around a strong leader and are too vulnerable to what happens to the leader. When the church or movement grows, the leadership may broaden from one to few (very few) leaders but still suffers from the too strong position of one or a couple of leaders.
I have grown in a society where individuals may have a ministry but churches are not churches of one leader. Although there are exceptions, even small churches are mainly lead by a group (called elders etc) that is in the hierarchy above the leading pastor. Basically, the pastors are workers in the church and the elders/council represents the employer. In that kind of structure, the failure of one leader is sad but not devastating. There is also the aspect of the leading pastor being responsible for others and supervised by the elders. That prevents the accumulation of too much power to one person. These features are good for the atmosphere and trust within the church.
It wasn’t meant to be veiled. I think they are bad people for their views opposing immigration and diversity, equity, and inclusion. I have zero interest in ingratiating myself with their whole crowd and it bothers me not one bit that my views aren’t palatable to them.
I can read between the lines. I was just calling it out politely. It’s apparent there is a lot of axe grinding going on here. But I don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. I treat each issue separately. GAE is a different issue than immigration. Lumping it all together is just frustration which I can fully understand. I’m just more interested in deepening my own understanding though.
Vinnie
Personally, I would reject the implication of associating conservative and evangelical Christians with sewage. That is a little excessive. The conservative churches I attended were generally filled with “good” people.
Vinnie
Yes - I apologize for that. And I removed my post.
-Merv
I’m not sure what the original author’s views are on the matter, nor do his original
views matter that much.
If I understand your use of the terms “theological” or “metaphysical” humans
correctly, the “Genealogical” model for “A&E” implies that God has had some
significant contact with A&E that would have a lasting spiritual value spanning
multiple generations. Such contact could be as minimal as simply being told
that there is a real God and that God wants us to be Good, not evil.
Pre-Adamite humanity’s God-guided evolution could have included a “hole in
our hearts” in the shape of the divine. Young chimpanzees are known to have
a permanent fear response upon a SINGLE exposure to a snake. In A&E’s
case, just discussing “Good and Evil” in connection with “God Eternal”
may be enough to imprint each new generation of humans.
I certainly don’t see a need for proposing NEW miracles. Providential
events is more than adequate.
However, if God really is the source of all human souls, it might be presumptuous
to think God’s ability to en-soul any human in any generation, with a spiritually
functioning mind, is somehow dependent on education, or genealogical status.
There are no real rules for metaphysics.
G.Brooks
PS: To specifically answer your question, when A&E fell, their fallen state
(for those who embrace Original Sin) would have been introduced into the
Pre-Adamite humans by intermarriage (genealogically).
Computer simulations show that the geometric expansion of UCAs can
become 100% in 1,500 to 2,000 years.
Your charts aren’t labelled. I have no idea what trends they may be showing.
I appreciate the overseas perspective. Just for the sake of reference, when I cite poll numbers, I’m speaking of US polls.
Duly noted.
Yep and yep and yep. As you say, the hits keep coming, and if “Christian maturity” means anything, it means being more and more conformed to the image of Christ as the years pass by. Yet these people who supposedly have the Holy Spirit living within them, which purportedly should make one more attuned to spiritual matters, seem to fall into gross sexual sin at the drop of a hat. (Leaving aside the gross sins of greed and power-grabs.) It does give any thinking person pause.
In every church I ever attended, women were the majority in the pews 60-40, and even including the men teaching adult Sunday School, serving as elders and tending the grounds on a rotating basis (smallish churches), women outnumbered men as volunteer labor about 80-20. So when you see studies like Christy cited on women leaving the church in outsized numbers, the effect is much larger than you think.
My dad was an elder and Sunday School teacher who had us kids in church 3 times a week. Mom went two or three times a month. I was neither of those things but had my kids in church on Sunday and for youth groups. Their mom made it twice a month at best.
Since you’re an atheist (no shade), I wonder what you think about this 2020 study from Religion, Brain & Behavior:
Predicting age of atheism: credibility enhancing displays and religious importance, choice, and conflict in family of upbringing
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2018.1502678
Essentially, Credibility Enhancing Displays (CREDS, great acronym) are when a parent acts in ways that enhance the credibility of what they say. In other words, actions speak louder than words. When Christian parents behave in ways that are consistent with what they say they believe, the kids are more likely to be Christians when they grow up.
And that, in large measure, is why MAGA drives away young people. You say you’re a Christian and follow Jesus, Mom and/or Dad, but what you vote for and cheer on is the opposite of what Jesus taught. Not exactly “CREDS”.
I think splitting the Adam of Genesis does more damage to the Bible’s message than GAE itself. I realize one can hold to GAE without doing this, and John Walton, in The Lost World of Adam and Eve, does it without GAE. Even so, the split loses what I believe is most important in order to prop up an individual couple that is less important.
All three times Genesis gives Adam’s story, it is humanity’s story: in the creation week (1:26–27), the Eden account (2:7–25) and the beginning of the human genealogy (5:1–5). That last passage, which claims to be about Adam and then repeats the word adam in every sentence, unambiguously knits these Adams together as one character who is all humanity, male and female, the father of Seth. Both collective and individual dimensions overlap in the singular character God names Adam.
It’s possible to use source criticism and say some verses come from a source where Adam is collective while others are from a source where Adam is a man. But I believe God inspired the composition of Genesis, not just its pieces. Whether the Adam parts came from different sources or not, in Genesis they are fused into one.
When that is accepted, the beginning of Genesis has much to say about humanity. In the first account, God creates humans in God’s own image and likeness. We receive dominion to subdue the rest of earthly creation. The second reveals that humans are dust. We are made to work the ground and protect the garden, but we succumb to the serpent’s temptation to become like God.
Both are true! I doubt any one story could so vividly express the complex interplay between God and humanity. We’re kings and gardeners, gods and dust. Each balances the other, guarding against taking any detail to an unhealthy extreme.
But when the Adams are split, they don’t both tell us who we are. They don’t mutually interpret each other. Instead, perhaps the first is about humanity as a whole (or only about the pre-Adamites, as you suggested) while the second is about a couple of people in the middle of time with only a silent genealogical connection to us. I have no issue with taking Adam and Eve to be real individuals, but when they’re only that, their story becomes irrelevant, no more than historical trivia. It loses its prophetic power to speak the truth about each of us.
I was the 4th generation in the same church. My grandfather was an elder, my father was heavily involved in choir and singing in general, my grandmother was involved in any number of tasks, and my mother (bless her heart) corralled us younguns. I was being groomed for church leadership at a young age which made it a bit uncomfortable when I distanced myself from those roles as I got older. Church twice a week, often 2 services on Sunday for one reason or another. Needless to say, I knew the routine at one point in my life.
I will say that both my father and grandfather walked the walk, at least during the time I grew up in the church and first left. Since then both my mother and father have leaned heavily into the MAGA world, which is disappointing. There was a hint of culture wars in the 70-90’s when I was in church, but it was never a prominent fixture. My reasons for losing my belief had nothing to do with politics, and I still look back fondly on the congregation I used to be a part of. I started to have doubts at about 15, and was checked out by my early 20’s. Not sure what would have stopped that.
I think you’re a too-smart outlier, but you’re not alone in that. Thanks for the personal story. It helps to know who you’re talking to. May I ask your congregational background?
Hear hear!
Exactly right. The term gradually moves from a general term for humanity to what amounts to a title (ha’adam) that serves as a literary archetype to a proper name, Adam, in Genesis 5.
Well said.
Addendum: But don’t forget that ha’issah, the woman, also serves as an archetype in Genesis 3. She represents all of humanity and each of us individually in our “coming of age” and confrontation with selfish evil (the snake) and a moral choice.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.