- Note the “?”
- The first was a question, prefaced by: “First question that I would ask is”.
- The second was a question that begins with "If the church isn’t:
Thanks, @jpm! That gives me a lot to think about. (Sorry about “DM” – that might be Twitter-specific terminology. It’s short for “direct message” so “private message” is exactly what I was referring to.)
There are certainly different pressures on different role-players here, most notably the head pastor of course. I also feel different levels of pressure on myself, though. At the least disruptive level, I just want to make sure my church is not committing itself to something inappropriate or against its stated values. On the other end of the spectrum, I almost feel led to go on a crusade, educating away the YEC movement. It’ll almost certainly end up being something in between.
Also thanks for reminding me that there are multiple “factions” a pastor must “keep happy” even among those on a single side of a debated topic. I don’t have any real first-hand experience with ministry work, but I do have a general feeling that sometimes a leader must, you know, lead. Definitely a tightrope sometimes, I’m sure, but when you’re convicted about something it sure is hard not to take a side.
That sounds like if the church isn’t, someone is.
Let me rephrase. Do you know of either having been done?
No, which is why I posted my rationale for the questions in the post following the one containing the questions.
They’re called PMs here, I guess. Yes – click/tap on the intended party’s profile photo and you get a popup with a Message option. Alternatively, there are menus in the upper right corner of the page which can get you there, as well.
1 Like
I am an old guy who doesn’t Twitter….uh, tweet. My hand do twitter a bit.
However, just keep in mind that Christianity is a lot more than being right about non-essential things. Certainly, we should stand for what we feel is true, especially when we feel misconceptions are harmful to the gospel, but we have to do it in love and with wisdom. I don’t think a field trip is too much of an threat to the gospel, personally.
1 Like
I don’t either, but in spite of my quickly advancing geezerhood I managed to guess what he meant. 
Absolutely true; we shouldn’t make mountains out of molehills. Is the field trip a threat? No, of course not. But that’s not the real issue I’m raising with leaders of my church.
I believe we have to consider the harmfulness of the YEC movement. I believe YECists not only reject science (if it was only that, it would probably just be irritating), but that they actually deter others (including current Christians) away from the Christian faith by their attitude toward criticism, misleading statements, and other embarrassing behavior (like referring to those who disagree as “Christians” in quotes to imply a nominal and/or disingenuous faith).
IMHO, this is worth fighting about. It must be done in the right way, of course, hence my original question. Anyway I do appreciate your insight!
2 Likes
I’ve made a number of replies on this forum which are pretty direct in addressing the many misrepresentations of YEC, but I figure that people who post here are consciously entering the fray and many are actively sorting through the issues. At the local church, my own tendency is to try and let it slide, or state my position while refraining from being drawn into debate. You may find that some are struggling to reconcile their faith with science, and they would probably be happy that they are not alone, so you can be an encouragement there.
In the end, you will have to do what you think is right, but it may be prudent to allow yourself a bit of extra time to evaluate your motivations, decide on the best approach, and what outcome may be desirable and realistic.
3 Likes
You cannot change them under any circumstances @GhostlyFigure02. For you are a reasonable man. Only support, with your money and time, any work they do for the underprivileged, any real charity; the true, social gospel. Everything else is a waste of you.
1 Like
(Would have replied sooner but the forum locked me out for a while as a new user.)
You’re absolutely right, @rsewell. I’m probably coming across more… aggressive, maybe? on this forum because I feel like I can speak freely among people that tend to agree with me on the topic at hand. In real life I’m pretty good at challenging people without making them feel attacked or sometimes even realizing that I’m disagreeing with them.
You can read in my original post that I went through my own struggle for reconciliation of faith and science, so I’m respectful of where others are on their ongoing journeys. I certainly appreciate your advice, and can assure you I will approach the church leaders with humility, kindness, and understanding.
3 Likes
Hi @GhostlyFigure02,
My own concerns about young earth creationism are not around the age of the earth itself, but about what gets presented as evidence for it. Science is a subject that needs to be approached in an honest and responsible manner and shouldn’t be treated lightly, because if you start approaching one area of science in a sloppy, dishonest or conspiratorial manner, people will start approaching other areas of science in a sloppy, dishonest or conspiratorial manner as well, and in some cases that can put people’s lives in danger. We’ve seen that a lot with covid-19, where hostility to masks and vaccines has ended up killing a lot of people unnecessarily. YECs seem to be particularly predisposed to believing conspiracy theories about such matters.
The Bible verse that I quote in particular in this regard is Deuteronomy 25:13-16:
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
What this basically means is that when discussing science, there are rules to be followed and standards to be maintained. (Basically, mathematics and measurement). Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution needs to obey these rules, otherwise it isn’t honest.
The point I would make to your pastor is that even if scientists have got it all wrong, and even if the earth really is six thousand years old after all, the Internet is awash with arguments to that effect that fall so far short of these rules and standards that they are an outright mockery. Anyone taking a stand on such issues needs to make sure that they know what they are talking about and that they understand the subject matter sufficiently to be able to filter out the bad arguments from the good ones, because otherwise they aren’t going to be upholding the Bible; instead, they will be undermining it. It’s also far too easy for well meaning but badly informed Christians to charge into the debate with all guns blazing only to find themselves quickly getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of their depth.
So rather than saying that the earth is x years old or that y evolved from z, get over it, just caution people that they need to know what they are talking about before trying to tackle complex technical subjects such as these. Are there any good arguments for a young earth, your pastor may ask? So far, I am yet to see one.
3 Likes
Here’s an update for anyone interested in the outcome of the meeting I had with the trip organizer:
He was a YECist as I suspected, but more of the lean-that-way-after-hearing-the-elevator-pitch variety than the hardcore literal-is-the-only-valid-interpretation variety. He was very open to my perspective and asked a lot of questions about my opposition to YEC. After some lengthy introductions, we touched on the merits of YEC vs old-earth science and how the church might provide a vehicle for education of at least the church leaders if not an offering of something the general congregation can participate in.
I did actually find out yesterday that the tour company has direct ties to AiG, so I gave the trip organizer several examples from the AiG website showing their dismissive, condescending, legalistic attitude toward Christians that disagree with them. The tour company’s website is fairly innocuous in comparison, but they do claim their tour presents a “biblical creation perspective,” as if the Bible can only be interpreted in the YEC way. I object to that terminology, but I didn’t find anything mean-spirited like on the AiG site.
In the end I reiterated that my request was two-fold: 1) that the church leaders hear out a science-based Christian viewpoint, and 2) that they reexamine their implicit connection to AiG by way of encouraging the patronizing of the tour company (as a response to some concerns in this thread, I verified that the church/tour relationship consists solely of advertisement of the church’s trip series on the church’s own website, nothing directly financial in nature).
The trip organizer is going to take my concerns to the head pastor and we’ll see what happens from there. Thanks to all who chimed in. I’m really glad I posted here! It was very helpful.
Edit: “other Christians” => “Christians that disagree with them”
13 Likes
Great. That’s a better outcome than many of us might have anticipated, having dealt with many ‘militant’ YECs in our travels.
2 Likes
I would suggest that you pray first. Then if you decide to have a conversation with your leader/, sit listen, and ask questions about why they hold that position.
Open dialogue is preferred always. No debate.
1 Like
Well done for taking the issue up with leadership, it’s not an easy thing.
Reading through your initial post I was reminded of the fact that many churches teach all sorts of things implicitly as “biblical” which aren’t in their statements of faith. For example, a number of times during the Covid pandemic it has been said from the pulpit at my church that God created a perfect world and that viruses etc were all the result of sin and the fall. This ‘cosmic’ fall type theology isn’t in our SoF, but it was presented as a clear biblical teaching so that it became a sort of “assumed” belief of the church. I think this happens with all sorts of stuff and that leaders need to do a better job of helping church members see the legitimacy of different views on secondary matters.
Anyway, hopefully you can be a force for change whichever way things go so that multiple viewpoints on secondary matters are given a good hearing in your church.
3 Likes
That’s all done already – see my update.
That’s ok as a starting point when coming forward about an issue, but not as a general rule. I would rephrase your last sentence to something like “Debate only in the appropriate setting.”
That’s what I’m shooting for! I actually have a meeting with the head pastor on Monday so we’ll see where it goes from there. Thanks for your example about the “assumed” belief – that’s good to keep in mind.
3 Likes
Wow!! That is QUITE the story!!
1 Like