@JohnZ, you like to make arguments based on analogies so I’ll reply with an analogy: Many of your posts, such as these responding to Christy, remind me of the response of many Christians to the “Black Lives Matter” movement when they proudly state:
All Lives Matter!
I have many Christian friends who think All Lives Matter! is a very wise and fair response. Yet they are deaf to the groans they’ve provoked and are baffled when someone acknowledges those groans.
Of course this will provoke groans by those who think that black lives is the main issue. But they are not baffled. They are making a point that basically agrees with Black Lives Matter, but not more than any other lives.
I recently heard an article on the radio where a statistic was mentioned that educated female aboriginals in Canada make more money and have a higher employment rate than educated female non-aboriginals. In this context, to say that aboriginal lives matter becomes a political ploy. On the other hand, a larger percentage of aboriginal women are in prison, and have been murdered or missing than the average population. So “aboriginal lives matter” is a plea for attention.
To say that all lives matter is a confirmation of these sector pleas, but it is also a response that says that the response should be directed towards the need, not towards the color. In other words, a missing aboriginal woman matters, but not more than a missing non-aboriginal, and not less either.
We should not ignore the factor of color, or ethnicity, or social class, or educational background, or neighborhood, or working conditions, or employability, or addictions in solving generic needs and conditions. But not all of these conditions are the defining characteristic of the need. Arguing that color is the defining need is missing the point.
Saying that communities are more important than the individual also misses the point.
I do agree that one should not (cannot) divorce social concerns from salvational ones. But in some defense, I think, of what @johnZ has been writing, I will offer up this quote from C.S. Lewis:
“If you read history you will find out that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. Aim at Heaven and you will get earth ‘thrown in.’ Aim at earth and you get neither.”
Now, whether Lewis could still make this same claim of the last half century could be a matter of new debate. Do we more recent evangelicals still live up to Lewis’ claim? It could well be that we have lost out recently in what may amount to a divorce (whether intended or not) of social concerns from spiritual ones.
Our community too, John, has these slogans being flung about with emotion. May I suggest that it is two distinct points (and yet in the end only one) that are being aimed at. “Black lives matter” is recognizing that a significant sector of our communities is receiving disproportionately poor treatment and has a significant need to be elevated even just to reach the basic levels human rights and treatment that those with lighter skin have grown up taking for granted. Hence the needed reminder that … “hey --they too are beloved people and everybody should start treating them as such.”
But folks who respond with “all lives matter” see instead an unfair privilege possibly being gained by a certain class that allegedly elevates them above the plain of normal human rights, and in essence respond by saying …“hey! what about all the rest of us? --we have rights too!” This wider point is not in any way denied by those who call our attention to points of need: in this case that blacks are still a persecuted community … a fact that is hard to dispute in light of the demographics of U.S. prisons. So these two slogans are both making separate points and shouting past each other. It may be a matter of irony that those rallying around the slogan “all lives matter” may actually be farther afield from addressing their very own point than those who are concerned about persecuted communities. I.e. …if you can’t recognize that some folks are still being treated as sub-human citizens and need special focus to help remedy this (which in no way denies that everybody is owed the same!) then you can’t very well claim to be aiming even at your own slogan that all lives matter! Jesus was not being unfair to the 99 when he went in search of the one lost sheep. He was bestowing loving attention exactly where it was needed. Or to make another parallel to a quote I just used in a post above: …aim at helping the most needy and persecuted of society whoever they may be, and you end up helping everybody. Aim at a general attitude that tries to regulate attentions according to a sort of universal “fairness” principle and you end up helping nobody. In short, the “black lives matter” folks may have actually come closer to not only addressing their own point, but also closer to addressing the very same other point that the others put themselves at such pains to make.
You should read some NPP scholars too. 
Paul and Jesus preached the same gospel.
Merv, I get it. And if it is a political statement, then it will be used as a way of refocussing attention. And if it works then it works. But saying that black lives matter is indirectly a kind of racial slur against blacks, because it infers that they are somehow assumed to be less valuable or more needy for no other reason than that they are black. It leaves the impression that all blacks are mistreated, or that all blacks are needy, or that all blacks are maligned. This is ironic in an environment where we have a black president and a black nominee in the primaries. (I say “we”, but I am actually not an American, so I should probably say “you”).
So in a non-political environment, we could argue that the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, are all important, they all matter, because that is the real point. If blacks had the same ratios of disadvantaged as other ethnic or identifiable groups, it would still be true that black lives matter, because they do. But the slogan misses the point, and that is the point of “all lives matter”, which is another way, and a better way of saying the same thing.
But politics rules, and so slogans, oversimplification, emotional responses, and inaccuracies abound.
I would say rather that instead of “inferring they are less valuable” the intent is to acknowledge they have been (are being) valued less, and that this devaluation needs to stop. I think we are agreeing on that (apart from my quibble on your wording). I do agree also that any political remedies that may follow will themselves be imperfect and subject to abuse. There will always be that. But I still think care needs to be taken that the “all lives matter” slogan does not merely live as a reactive contrast (or a misapplied corrective) to a legitimate targeted call embodied in the other slogan, and yet I’m afraid that the “all lives matter” may in reality be just that.
For some, missing the point is a full-time occupation.
May God the Holy Spirit draw us to be more Christ-like. (I didn’t start that sentence with the goal of sounding Trinitarian but so be it.)
Incredible.
Absolutely incredible.
Perhaps as a Canadian, I just don’t perceive the problem to its extent. I do see a difference in population dynamics, but I don’t see people being valued less. Maybe they are. When I go down south, in California, I see a disproportionate number of darker skinned people on staff, but they are treated as well as the lighter skinned people on staff. A dark skinned lady on staff was treated by the patrons with a great deal of respect and admiration, and welcomed into the church service for example, and even asked to sing. So I don’t see an inherent mistreatment by most, although admittedly, half the patrons there were Canadians.
And then (this is a diversion, isn’t it… perhaps we will be shut down or clamped down…) there is the need to realize that a slogan like “black lives matter” creates a perfect environment for resentment and excuses. It is an accusation, after all. It does not solve the problem of discrimination. And it hides the real needs of people.
In Canada, the closest parallel may be the aboriginal indigenous situation. The treaty nations aboriginals were about the last to be given the right to vote, and they are disproportionately in prison, and in the family welfare system, and in the justice system. However, they have certain constitutional rights which would be deemed racist under normal situations, which give them rights to hunt and fish on crown lands, and on private lands, that no one else has. This right also leads to financial compensation when oil companies and gas companies or highways or power lines are built on “traditional lands”. If this carries on for another hundred years, they will have achieved the ability of the king of england in days long ago, to claim all the deer in the entire land as their own, and to hunt when no one else can. Perhaps this is hyperbole, but nevertheless it perpetuates a racial distinction that is not beneficial to the long term welfare of the country.
On the other hand, they have real needs that go beyond mere finances, since on a per capita basis they receive considerably more from the governments of this country per capita than the average Canadian, in addition to having access to all the other government services provided for everyone. This is not solved by saying that “First Nations peoples matter”. That merely shifts the responsibility to someone else.
A Statistics Canada study released Tuesday, which was based on data obtained through the 2011 National Household Survey, found that First Nations, Métis and Inuit women are less likely to have postsecondary degrees than other Canadian women – a fact that is hardly surprising, given that the on-reserve high-school dropout rate continues to hover around 60 per cent.
But the study also found that those indigenous women who do obtain a degree or diploma after high school earn, on average, slightly more than their non-indigenous counterparts with the same level of education.(Globe and Mail)
Regarding your observations of, say, people who are “on a staff” --presumably gainfully employed then, I suggest that you are looking in the wrong place. One can always find well-to-do examples from about any demographic. Those are the ones who don’t need the concern. No – try this one instead. You are a white man on an innocent jog through a dense city area and notice a police official parked off to the side as you securely jog on by. Now change the color of your skin and imagine how you feel with the eyes of that officer on you as you jog by. He’s no longer the “friend on your team” (at least in the mind of the jogger --and understandably so). Or how many of us have accidentally left a purse, backpack, or parcel sitting somewhere and went back to retrieve it. Now give yourself an Arab looking profile and engage in the same innocent action and see how people react to you. That’s racism. And we all have at least a bit of it in all of us.
You probably have less of a problem with all this in Canada than we do in the U.S.; down here we abjectly serve fear as our highest god as can be evidenced by our policies and electoral preferences in just about everything.
OK, let’s get back on track here. Discussing U.S. racial politics is not only a tangent, but it’s liable to take us down ungracious roads.
Well, you believe his presentation of the history of the universe is rank heresy or worse, do you not?
So I guess we’re even then.
Because of our different approaches to God’s Word, and our differing views of God’s Word, we will never be able to agree. it’s just that simple. That is the bottom line that explains our differences.
And, as a result, both sides will take the same piece of data and interpret it differently.
And, both sides will forever believe the other side is teaching falsehood.
As far as I know, Evolutionary Creationists in general and BioLogos specifically do not consider the YEC position heretical. Usually Evolutionary Creationists completely accept YECs as non-heretical brothers in Christ, despite differences in approach to biblical hermeneutics and scientific evidence. It is not central to the Gospel and Salvation. As Tim Keller says about his own congregation in New York, “Nobody goes in or out of our church on this issue.”
From this perspective, the topic of origins is more like an enormous discussion within the huge family of children of God. Unfortunately, some of those children are claiming that some of the other children are serpents…
OK, you may not consider it heretical, my bet is that you certainly believe it is flat out wrong, even harmful to Christianity, and you are dead set against it. Right or wrong? If it were up to you, you would like to convince every believer to stop believing in the false paradigm of a young earth. Right or wrong? And you feel it is a bad testimony to the world and brings shame on the body of Christ. Right or wrong?
So, I’m not sure what qualifies as heresy or how you define heresy, but my bet is that you have very strong feelings against that theological interpretation of Scripture.
Keller is a big disappointment to me on this issue. I really like his approach to Scripture on every other topic, but here he all of a sudden changes his approach and goes wimpy. I personally think he does this because of his audience there in NYC. I think he is afraid that the YEC teaching would turn people off and would drive people away. He is trying to reach intellectuals and elites and needs to have a relevant message, but I think he is mistaken.
Perhaps there are some churches that require a YEC understanding of Genesis and the Bible, but I would think that most YEC pastors would say the same thing as Keller. The pastor and most of the members might be YEC, but there is no reason someone who does not hold the same view cannot become a member and be an active part of the church. I doubt most Old earthers would feel comfortable in a YEC church, but it isn’t that they are not welcome. Keller may have an open door to all, but would he welcome someone teaching a Sunday School class on Genesis if they taught a YEC view? I seriously doubt it. They are welcome as long as they fit in with the church’s teaching and do not make an issue of it in church. Just a guess.
Yep, absolutely. BioLogos has never once called YEC heretics, and never will. I’m actually working on an article about this right now.
This is usually true, although some ECs have used the H-word. Hence the need for the article.
[quote=“tokyoguy111, post:35, topic:4532”]
OK, you may not consider it heretical, my bet is that you certainly believe it is flat out wrong, even harmful to Christianity, and you are dead set against it. Right or wrong? If it were up to you, you would like to convince every believer to stop believing in the false paradigm of a young earth. Right or wrong? And you feel it is a bad testimony to the world and brings shame on the body of Christ. Right or wrong?
[/quote] Right, right, right, and right. Although there’s lots of beliefs held by fellow Christians that I would put in this category without using the H-word.
I attended Keller’s church while in college and his teaching has made a huge difference in my spiritual journey, so I can speak with some authority here. Keller’s mission is to give people in secular NYC a fresh perspective on biblical Christianity. Certainly, that involves opening up the Scriptures to them and giving them a fresh presentation of the gospel. But he also has to work against barriers to faith set up by other Christians. “Christians are anti-reason, Christians are anti-art, Christianity is just religious conservative politics”, etc. In these cases, the stereotypes come from reality, not just imagination. So in re-casting Christian faith for this audience, Keller has decided to also critique some of the Christian perspectives which have led to these negative stereotypes. And his support of evolutionary creationism is in line with that mission. It’s not a sudden departure from his usual approach to things. He fully supports biblical authority, but he’s fully willing to apply that authority to contemporary issues in ways that go against the grain of many other “conservatives”.
I can assure you that Keller doesn’t choose his positions based on what is “popular”. He’s invested decades of his life spreading the gospel in a city that is very hostile to orthodox Christianity. There’s a difference between deeply understanding your target audience and their concerns, and selling out to the crowd.
It’s also worth mentioning that Keller sees himself as part of a lineage of strong Christian evolutionary creationists such as Billy Graham, John Stott, and C.S. Lewis (whom he quotes frequently in his writings about all this…especially Lewis). So if Keller is an aberration, he’s got good company.
I would start by opening up possibility and permission.
I grew up in a strong “4 Spiritual Laws” evangelical and evangelistic church. I could recite the “Gospel message” flawlessly, as it was taught. This was of great benefit, as much as I now recognize that the “Gospel message” goes far beyond the “4 Spiritual Laws.”
And yet…where in the “4 Spiritual Laws” does it state–you can’t believe in evolution? That opens possibilities. It furthers conversation. It reduces the “us vs. them” mentality. It moves apologetics conversations past fruitless “evolution vs. YEC” debates.
That’s the conversation I would have with my younger self. That’s the conversation I have had with people that are younger than me…
You’re a Canadian, eh? Roll up the Rim!
I appreciate that approach, @fmiddel. That’s “The Big Story” that Ken Ham should think about: What, exactly, is the Gospel message?
Why are we Homo sapiens sapiens so prone to legalism and tribalism? And we don’t we learn more from our history in these regards? If I could travel back in time, I would ask these questions of my younger self. I’m less frightened by my science ignorance of a half century ago as I am of my willingness to go along with the legalists and the exclusionists. What would I have been like if I had lived in Calvin’s Geneva? Would I have been overly casual about declarations of heresy when such declarations included a death sentence?
These aren’t mere mental exercises for me. I question how I might have behaved if I had had the powers of government behind me. It scares me to consider these thought experiments.
I fully understand and have no complaints about his teaching from Genesis 12 through through Revelation that does not relate to the foundation of the Bible - Genesis 1-11. I too have been blessed by his ministry and emphasis on the gospel.
Right. It is the anti-reason stereotype that he is resisting. He knows that would not fly with the group he is seeking to reach. And I do feel his approach to the Bible suddenly changes when he goes to Genesis. We’ll just agree to disagree on that. And yes, I agree that his support of evolutionary creationism is in line with that mission.
Yes, fortunately, on most other issues, Keller takes a hard stand. I’m sure his belief in evolutionary creationism is genuine as well. I’m not accusing him of teaching something he doesn’t believe in order to appeal to the masses. And yes, I understand that a number of famous Christians have taken this position as well, but that is neither here nor there. I’m afraid he does have some good company.
“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.