It’s worth noting that these are two different things:
“Objections… to Christianity”: This is primarily about the perspectives of those currently outside the faith. Key terms here might be “evangelism”; “apologetics”, etc. It might be regarded as “external presentation”.
Discussions about YEC-vs-OE-vs-TE/EC… This is primarily about Christian-vs.-Christian inside that faith. It’s internal (although the outside world, e.g. Dawkins and the new atheists, see YEC and (falsely) claim that it a central tenet of the entire faith).
For the first (evangelism beyond the church walls), the science is important. No-one will dispute that.
But for the second (debunking YEC within the church), the science is, frankly, largely a distraction from the primary dispute which is the oft-hurled accusation (YEC against TE) that we “don’t trust the Bible” (as in the case @Randy raised). For this second case, the absolute priority is establishing that TE/EC takes the Bible just as seriously as they do (we might internally say “even more seriously”). The rest is noise.
Thanks. What are some ways you would clarify that for YEC? I have tried the example of Galileo, (heliocentric solar system), and I think that helped a little. I’d like to learn. Thanks.
Dear gentlemen, I think you’re talking about two different things. Both worthy of talk, but in this way you end up talking past each other.
In spite of what we think about YEC, that is not what the 1700 years of need for change is about. Waiting to clean up YEC in order to work toward providing social justice to the dispossessed and hopeless will take too long, postpone important aims. The goal of social justice must be dealt with independent of as many other factors as possible.
Addressing YEC can happen simultaneously, assuming that it doesn’t overtake the resources needed for more pressing projects, but in a different channel.
Not necessarily. Quite a number of us here regularly and heartily voice objections to Christianity (or rather - what has become the currently recognized institutional face of Christianity) and we consider ourselves among the body of believers, whether others will welcome us as such or no.
Agreed. Although - not all YECs are charitable enough to see it as an internal struggle.
Regarding your (and my) first point above, Brian McLaren recently wrote a book “Do I Stay Christian” which delves into these sorts of questions, and (so far as I know, having only just started the book), doesn’t get into the weeds of YECism or the origins controversy. It looks to be a good work although the title alone (which appears to reflect an honestly asked, and genuinely open question in his book) will scare many off.
Further, many Christian youth have already moved on or never been stuck on creation/evolution. Not that BioLogos is trying to get involved in culture wars, but they are interested in being relevant, so you notice a shift over the last five years or so from being focused on evolutionary creation to being being more broadly focused on how Christians can think Christianly about science. So now there are articles on environmental justice, creation care, healthcare disparities, science and racism, science education, technology, neuroscience, psychology, transhumanism, and other emerging discussions in scientific fields that Christians should be equipped to participate in. And of course there has been COVID and vaccines.
A keyword in my reply was “primarily”, as distinct from “exclusively”, “only”, etc.
Yes, the spectrum is more subtle than my “X-endpoint vs. Y-endpoint” set-up, but to a first approximation this distinction seems useful to have, as the thread topic is “The struggle of leaving YEC…” (i.e. primarily the “inside” endpoint of that spectrum), whereas the point being made and to which I was responding was about the “apologetics” end (primarily the “outreach” beyond the church endpoint).
The point is that the two endpoints may often require different approaches. And there is a stuff in the middle which may require a mix of both.
(To re-affirm: the context here is us TE/EC firmly in the faith in our engagement with YEC.)
For us to be able to articulate to a YEC person clearly and with conviction something like the following pair of statements:
I (like you) fully accept the Bible to be the God-breathed, divinely-inspired Word of God (2 Tim 3.16 etc.). That is, “you and I are on the same side”.
I (probably unlike you) reject the man-made religious opinion that Gen.1-11 is anything like modern history. It is instead [and here go into ANE culture]. That is: “this superimposition of our respective opinions/interpretations is what places us on opposite sides”.
It is that simultaneous pair of statements, not anything at all to do with contents of modern science, which crystallises the foundational difference between YEC and TE/EC. (The resulting difference in acceptance/rejection of science is a secondary effect of that more foundational underlying difference.)
(Also, perhaps avoid YEC “slam-dunk” words like “inerrancy” and “infallibility”. They are a distraction. They appear (to a YEC) to be “absolute” but in reality are so slippery and subjective (despite the seemingly objective Chicago Statements) as to be elusive and therefore a distraction. (If you must: “Yes, I accept scripture as inerrant (according to my interpretation of inerrant) just as much as you accept it to be inerrant (according to your/Chicago interpretation)”.)
Indeed the quotes given are great. This first one is practically the theme of Iain McGilchrist’s newer book The Matter With Things. (@Mervin_Bitikofer, if you have the book I wonder if he mention’s this book in an index?):
I used to think that things were real and change was something that happened to them over time. Now I think change is real and things are events that happen over time. Change is real and things come and go, appear and disappear, form and fade over time.
And I personally can attest to this being a sound observation:
And I want us to consider how we are going to live whether or not we are going to identify as Christian.
And even if one identifies as Christian one still must wonder how many or which Christians have in mind the same understandings you do about what the words mean in the creeds.
An electronic search of the book for that particular title or for the author: ‘McGilchrist’ yielded zero hits. So … I guess not. As I read through it, I’ll probably be leaving commentary here, and you can continue to judge on similarities.
The problem is they immediately go on the offensive as soon as you bring in statement two. To them Gen. 1-11 should be accepted as it’s written. They don’t view it as one interpretation among others. And then once you point out that they quickly jump to New Testament statements by Jesus, Paul, and Peter. And to be honest, I sort of think they have a point. A holistic, if simple way of connecting creation/early Gen. narratives to historical contexts. Adam Eve and Noah seemingly affirmed in history by New Testament writers.
I don’t always think TE/EC folks do a good job talking about these New Testament issues for a non literal/non historical Gen 1-11 interpretation.
You’re right about the youth, and I applaud BioLogos for casting a larger net. All of those things are relevant to the organization’s mission, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that evolution falls into the same anti-science, conspiracy theory categories as climate change denial, Covid denial, anti-vaxx, anti-mask, systemic racism, and the rest. BioLogos absolutely should counter those narratives with facts.
Your kids are lucky to have you for a parent. They weren’t raised with the typical home-school/Christian school curriculum. The far-right turn in 2016 alienated the youth, but from what I’ve observed of those who “deconstruct” their faith, it starts with learning something you were taught from childhood to believe isn’t true, and from there, some keep asking enough questions to wind up here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1581408058290208768
The Language of God podcast should invite Peter Hotez to talk about the rise of anti-scientism. I’d also love to hear him give a Jewish perspective and talk a bit about his disabled daughter. Sorry for getting sidetracked. The man is truly a selfless hero.
One of the best papers I’ve seen on literal-vs-figurative construction of the Gen.1 text is this one by @Christy. It’s rather deep because of its academic nature, but it is worth trying to grasp her main points. The same principles would also apply out to the wider Gen.1-11 “primeval history”.
Using “creation week” as her example, we tend to see a binary divide between:
the science in which it is abundantly clear that there is nothing remotely resembling the Genesis “creation week”
the YEC interpretation: "the text says ‘a week’ therefore it really is a historical week in historical time.
These two are clearly incompatible as stated.
I think Christy’s point, as a linguist, is that the telling of the Gen.1 account really is framed as a seven-day week as any of us understand it, but that doesn’t mean that it is describing some real week in real history.
@Christy: Do you have a lay person’s version of your paper? Is there something similar on the BioLogos website? If not, perhaps there should be one.
Theologically, a great book is Peter Enns’ “Inspiration and Incarnation”. His basic point (very much over-simplified here!) is that just as we live with the gospel accounts presenting the eternal, infinite “Word of God” (pace John’s gospel) being incarnate within a very specific time, very specific place and very specific culture (or overlap of such cultures), so too we should see scripture presenting the “word of God” similarly with some sort of time/place/culture framing of its original environment.
(The problem with attempting to type a response such as this is that it could become very, very long!)
I wrote it all up formally after trying to explain my ideas here in many a “what is the meaning of yom?” conversations here on the forum, but that’s probably not what you mean. Thanks for reading it! One time, I did a YouTube interview about it for Zach Miller, whose channel I linked up thread.
The need for accurate and honest weights and measures really needs to be the cornerstone of everyone’s response to young earthism. It’s the one point that needs to be hammered home to them in no uncertain terms, again and again and again and again and again.
This definitely was helpful to me when I first learned about it from reading your blog. I hadn’t seen an argument like it. I did use it during a conversation with my dad. Though, I wasn’t admitting I wasn’t Young Earther at the time. I was just making the point that I think it’s odd all these scientists, across dozens of fields of study, are coming up with false numbers and measurements. Again and again. Failing to observe God’s creation correctly.
