Mark, there is a great deal to ‘unpack’ from that short quotation of yours–much that is ‘unorthodox’ but which has sustained my Christian Faith for the past 50 yrs. I was raised following the ‘rational theology’ that it was axiomatic that God was perfect, and therefore was unchanging–i.e., any change would have to be in a downward direction. However, when I met my wife (to be) and we fell madly in love, I realized that her love for me obviously changed me (for the better, I might add). If her love for me left me Unchanged, if I cared not one whit whether she loved me or not, would that constitute Love? No way! Why should it be entirely different with my relationship with God? If God truly cares for me (wants me to bear his image) then He has hopes for me; he roots for me when I try hard, and he groans with me when I fail. It is not just in church that I feel his close presence. I can get an even closer feeling on the Mt. Rainier trail or sitting on the edge of Half Dome.
My agnostic colleagues have reminded me how easily the human mind is deluded–i.e., the thought that some powerful Spirit is watching over me, is rooting for me–that’s just a delusion that eases the troubles of life on earth. Two millennia ago Jesus was able to perform miracles to demonstrate the Father’s love for the disciples living with him. But we take it for granted that nothing like this happens nowadays. So it almost blew me over (together with 3 agnostic scientists) when, on a bus in a Boston traffic jam, this love for my colleague, Prof. Eric Lien, was clearly demonstrated and guidance provided. [described in earlier post, The Miracle of the Panel Truck] The experience was more enlightening, more effective, than a dozen scholarly books on theology would have been. Eric claims it was life changing.
Al Leo
I had always seen it as liberal, but that was back when I was under the impression that conservative = good, and liberal = bad. These days I try to see it as neutral, without the cultural baggage it used to have.
It really gets confusing, especially since political liberalism and conservatism has been confused and injected into church matters, and theological liberalism and conservatism are different animals ( and also different from fundamentalism and progressive Christianity.)
I am attracted to the use of what Roger Olson calls post-conservatism in his book reviewed here:
In any case, perhaps I am sliding away from the current subject, and if any wish to continue along this line of discussion, we can move to a new post.
I’m afraid when I search for “the miracle of the panel truck” I only find places where you’ve referred to it, but not the post with the full account.
I appreciate your taking the time to share your beliefs and experiences. I think it is at times of need when circumstances would seem to have outmatched our capacity to respond, that we are likely to have experiences which feel like an intervention on our behalf.
From reading the wiki entry it certainly seems that Teilhard de Chardin is not very popular now and never has been. But he is relevant to this website I think because he does go deep into both science and theology. Of course the theology is highly unconventional and the science probably not terribly up to date. But I admire him for trying to reconcile such disparate fields.
My mistake. The Pew forum question asked if evolution was the best explanation for the origin of human life. I missed the word “human” and got (un)righteously indignant that they were conflating abiogenesis with evolution. I will now slither back under my rock.
I just wanted to add that I completely agree with you about who is the beneficiary of love. Sometimes, when we’re young, it seems that the validation of another’s love is paramount. But I agree that it is the person who is animated and transformed by the love they feel for the other who gains the most. Of course it is still pretty handy if the object of our love is as invested in us as we are in them if only to keep them in our orbit. And yes the situation is similar with God, though the situation seems more analogous to parental love. But I don’t feel certain of the parallel you are drawing here.
I don’t know if someone has mentioned it, but I’m pretty sure a non-denominational church would be pretty fine with evolution. I gave up on denomination not too long ago I happen to think that all denominations are, almost by default at one level, wrong and needless sequestering of Christianity. I wouldn’t be aware, though, which non denom would be conservative or which liberal.
I’d suggest an alternative to this scenario, but before I do, I’d have to point out that it would be very weird to look for scientific evidence for the fall. What are we looking for, exactly? I think scientism is trying to apply science where it doesn’t belong.
Anyways, Jesus’ role as redeemer isn’t predicated on a historical Adam sinning, the primeval history of Genesis 1-11 is allegorical and so there was no historical Adam. But at some point, God did endow humanity (perhaps a certain human) with His image, and the person who received this image can be considered a proto-Adam in any sense. With this image came an ability to intellectually distinguish between right and wrong, and though God points to the right, they commit wrong anyways. Hence a “fall” in the sense that man chose sin, and the sin therefore that plagued humanity until the coming of Christ. This is one clear scenario all of this could have played out.
Non-denominational churches in our neck of the prairie here would be a real mixed bag on that score. It would be interesting (to say the least) if most non-denominational churches fit into narrow niches so as to fuel such generalization. Then one could almost think of non-denominationals as another … denomination!
I attend a YEC Baptist church now, though my parents went to a nondenominational church that was 5000 people and relatively young earth. I am a bit puzzled about the perspective we have on denominations, but I think it has influence on YEC vs EC interpretation. For example, most Baptists in this area feel it’s better not to have a tightly knit denomination, so they can each interpret the Bible the way they want. I think that leads to literal interpretation without the ANE background. however, perhaps it makes the Bible appear more personal for them. Awana and memorization, but not catechism, are prominent in my church. On the other hand, the folks who attend denominations (Christian Reformed, Reformed, Catholic, Methodist) here seem to have the benefit of the main headquarters in interpretation, counseling, mediation, etc. I guess it really tracks with people’s personality, which type of group they attend.
I don’t know if historians would agree with my speculation here - maybe I’ll find out.
Today it would seem that “non-denominational” is a way of self-identifying by “what we are not” as much as it is “what we are”. We are not one of them seems to be a high priority of identification. And perhaps all current denominations had similar beginnings. They all emerged from some larger group with a troubling enough history to foment the furor. And how common is it that the leaders intend for their followers to be named after them? Did Luther ever encourage any such thing for those now known as Lutherans? Most think that Menno Simons would have been horrified to think a new group would be called “Mennonites”, but such came from the insulting taunts of others later. I suspect a lot of denominations start that way … not with an effort to really make something new, but more an effort to force reform on the old, or to come out and be separate for the purpose of being a “truer” church (not a new one).
On the strength of that speculation, I would give it no more than a few years before we start seeing “non-denominational” as one of the denominational choices folks can select on forms soliciting their church preferences. But such a thing would obscure the wild variance that surely exists among all such churches.
Non-denominational churches really do vary from fundamentalist Bible churches to very progressive theology. It is difficult at times to get a straight answer as to positions as many do not want to be limited in who they appeal to. Just looking at the statement of belief of the major local non-denominational churches, they are pretty indistinguishable from one another, and very general.
…which may be a very deliberate and defensible posture. Of the various statements of faith of organizations I’ve encountered, there were many that I thought had “runaway” detail (i.e. as in the framers were seemingly incapable of thinking of any of their opinions about the Bible as nonessential.) But I’ve rarely (or never) encountered a faith statement (at least in any scriptural context whatsoever) that struck me as needing more. I more admire the brief, even open-ended statements than the extensive ones.
Just as Biologos steadfastly resists being nailed down as advocating this or that specific evolutionary stance, so that they can remain a “big tent”, so some churches want to leave it at “simply Christian” in the service of a larger unity. So for all of my critique of non-denominationalism, I do admire them for that.
Well I simply assumed non denoms would be less stringent on peripheral “doctrines” like on evolution. Anyways, I don’t have experience with the churches themselves so I’ll just take your word.
Today it would seem that “non-denominational” is a way of self-identifying by “what we are not” as much as it is “what we are”. We are not one of them seems to be a high priority of identification. And perhaps all current denominations had similar beginnings.
I agree with this. As a non denom myself, I find the idea of rejecting denominations as rejecting the thick human tradition that has been piled onto Christianity over the centuries. Non denominationalism is one of the fastest growing “groups” in modern Christianity – in 2017 they were 1 in 6 Americans, which is double that from 2000.
Without expanding on my previous statement–that there ought to be some scientific evidence left for us to examine if Adam & Eve were indeed created perfect, not fated to die or have difficulty raising food or in childbirth, all of this a mere 6,000 yrs. ago–it might well seem to be scientism. But I think you will agree that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the belief that all animals that were born on this earth eventually died here. To believe in exceptions, like Elijah, one must rely entirely on Faith in Scripture; i.e., there can be NO accommodation with science. That’s OK. The most important belief for Christians is that Jesus rose from the dead, and that is not likely to given any scientific proof. That’s where I’ll make my leap of faith.
This is the problem which in the past prevented the Vatican from seriously considering Teilhard’s theology that is based upon a “God Ahead” rather than just a “God Above”. And Rome was probably right, in that most Christians are more surely kept in line through fear of Hell than being enticed with making, with God’s help, a much improved World.
I agree with your quote above, but would add the following: While we are all in fair agreement on most sins of commission, we are often unaware of Sins of Omission. For example, while most of us do not have the skills necessary to serve as a medical missionary or to provide housing and retraining for the homeless–obvious moves toward an improved creation–we often ignore the need for both physical and financial support for these efforts. We do indeed need to refrain from robbery, murder, and debauchery, but surely Jesus expects more of us when he asks us to “take up His Cross and follow Him.”
Al Leo
Science certainly refutes the 6,000 year ago thing, but again, it simply can’t speak about any special act of creation or whether or not Adam, in his evolutionary line, was initially morally perfect or something. I don’t know about whether or not Adam was initially fated to die, even on a literal reading of Genesis.
This paper by Joshua Swamidass may have relevance here…
I agree with your quote above, but would add the following: While we are all in fair agreement on most sins of commission, we are often unaware of Sins of Omission. For example, while most of us do not have the skills necessary to serve as a medical missionary or to provide housing and retraining for the homeless–obvious moves toward an improved creation–we often ignore the need for both physical and financial support for these efforts. We do indeed need to refrain from robbery, murder, and debauchery, but surely Jesus expects more of us when he asks us to “take up His Cross and follow Him.”
I agree with everything here. There are many forms of sins, no doubt.
Unfortunately I never learned to effectively use the search engine on the Forum either. But Elie did, and she posted a link to a later post of mine. You can find it under the topic “What does a miracle mean to you?” The date is Oct. 2017, and its about 10% from the top. Hope this leads you to it.
Al Leo
You know, I believe this is how “signs” and “omens” have always worked. Our conscious minds notice details in the environment which are relevant to a question or concern. Now I don’t think the noticing is entirely random since I do believe there are levels of consciousness where we know the answers and it is those levels which direct our conscious attention. The net result is the transfer of insight so that we can more fruitfully focus our conscious intentions.
There needn’t be any divine manipulation of the physical world in order for the “miraculous” to happen, leastwise not the way I choose to understand that word.