These are broad categories but I’m trying to figure out how EC Christians might describe themselves. On the extreme edges of progressive theological thought there is doubts to the historicity of Christ and the Resurrection, issues of biblical authority, varying soteriological views, etc. For fundamentalists, these issues are unequivocally settled: Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, YEC, ECT, and so on. While any believer would acknowledge a difference between core doctrines like the Trinity as much more central to Christian doctrine than a teaching on tithe for example, Christians disagree on exactly which are the more “essential” ideas. Where does a view on creation and evolution fit into all this? I grew up in YEC fundamentalism being raised in the conservative holiness movement but in the last few months my beliefs on topics such as this one have moved into the “I have no idea” category. This article gets at my question in detail. I like this summary of Pew’s project of how “one could define a position that avoids both extremes: a relativism in which all assertions of truth are deemed to be irrelevant or unattainable, and a fundamentalism in which an alleged truth is propounded in an attitude of aggressive intolerance. Such a position boils down to a seemingly simple, but actually very complex statement: It is possible to have religious faith in the absence of certainty.”
I have browsed a few threads to explore beyond the tag line that “evolution is compatible with Christianity” to see how exactly that works. If anything is clear, it is there is not one set view on the details of how this works. The important questions always come up about Adam and Eve, Christ, and how to know which things in the Bible one can take literally and which figuratively. The atheist says Christians just mold Scripture to fit whatever they are trying to get to much like “cafeteria style” political views taken from the Bible. I suppose this is a question of hermeneutics. The discussion in the link went into political applications but since that is off topic for this forum, I’m hoping to stick with the theological/epistemological ideas. Atheists like Sam Harris might describe the Biologos project the best option to “safeguard” the future from religious extremism. In other words, converting people to the light of atheism is too difficult a task but convincing them their religious beliefs are compatible with modern science is a realistic and useful goal. I sense a similar motive in Pew’s project, but this transcript was informative nonetheless: Between Relativism and Fundamentalism: Is There a Middle Ground? | Pew Research Center