|
|||||
|
Awilum has a short post that makes a couple of good points related to literary genre, which I’ve been discussing in a couple of posts, and will discuss some more. You should go read his post, but let me highlight the points that caught my attention: Form and genre are not the same Form [...] Through this week’s Christian Carnival I found two posts on science and religion that interested me. One I agree with completely, and I just want to underline a couple of points. The other, not so much, though it is still a good article. The first is An intelligently designed universe from Sun and Shield. [...] The following from YouTube illustrates why I simply don’t trust politicians for anything. There being a perceived imbalance in talk radio in favor of conservatives, to which I say “Who cares?”, a number of liberals are now calling for government control, obviously because we all know that the government is always fair in the [...] I join with Laura in welcoming Discovering the Heart of God as a new Philophronos Blogroll member. Go check out his blog. I’m going to link to a specific post from the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter to which I’m the primary contributor. Fellow philophronos blogger Laura has made a number of excellent points in a post titled Great Moments in Conservative Hypocrisy. Now I’m not linking back so I can crow and say, “See! Those conservatives were hypocrites all along, and finally one of them is recognizing it!” First, I would have to note that I [...] The Evangelical Ecologist has an excellent post titled Closing Credibility Gaps. I think that I’m in a good position to underline his post, as a member of a congregation of the United Methodist Church, one of those declining mainline denominations. Just so the error seekers know that I saw it, I will quibble slightly over the use of an example statement from the Anglican Church (UK) followed by an example of decline from the Episcopal Church (USA). The Anglican church does indeed have its share of problems, but it is a beast of a different color from the Episcopal Church. They fall under a larger umbrella together in the Anglican communion, but that doesn’t make them of the same denomination. Nonetheless, I don’t think that vitiates the overall point of the essay. I commented tangentially on this issue, though not in direct relation to ecology, in my post Christian Essentials: Incarnation at the Center: Christianity can’t retreat into being simply a system of ethics. It involves ethics, but it also involves redemption and empowering, the means of creating ethical people by redemption, but even more the means of bringing people into touch with God. I could rephrase that as Christianity cannot retreat into being a system of politics, or of science, or of any similar thing. Whatever positions we may take as Christians on anything at all, it has to start with being Christian. Why is this so? Christianity takes a good deal of work. Even if you drop most of the doctrines, take away the servant leadership and the discipleship, and make it essentially a social club, you still have to maintain the club house (the church), pay the leadership and staff, and people have to go to meetings. Now if the church is merely a social club, why wouldn’t one find a cheaper way to accomplish those goals. I guarantee you that church architecture is not the most economical way out there to construct a clubhouse. Now if you’ve been a member of the club all your life, you may feel inclined to remain a member. But what about new people? If your selling points on your church are entirely made up of political and social goals, why should somebody join the church? What you’re telling the potential new member, or the person you are trying to keep as a member is this: “Come join our social and political movement. We cost more, we’re less effective, but we have the traditional label ‘Christian’.” I believe this has been the major failing of Christian liberals. We (I’m called liberal often enough to use an inclusive “we”) have kept all the social goals, but in order not to put anyone off, we have been afraid to pursue any sort of spiritual or doctrinal standard whatsoever. I commented in an earlier post that when I first decided to join a United Methodist congregation I checked out two different ones. In the first one the pastor kind of chuckled at my interest in the church’s doctrinal positions and said, “We don’t really worry that much about what you believe. If you enjoy fellowship with us, you can join.” The other pastor asked me about my experience and relationship with Jesus. I joined the second. Being inclusive can eliminate the barriers to people entering the congregation but at the same time it can remove all identity from that congregation and thus any positive reason to join. The Evangelical Ecologist is absolutely right. We can talk and talk about this as churches, but why is it that anyone should listen? Are our councils of clergy more knowledgeable about climate change than various scientific groups? Do we have some extraordinary expertise in administration so as to help implement all this legislation? If you’ve participated in church councils, I suspect you already know we have neither of those elements. What the church could have, and should have is the moral impetus to challenge and empower people to implement change. But that moral impetus can only come from conviction that is part of an active spiritual life. Though I believe there are particular doctrines that are better than others, I don’t think the primary problem of mainline denominations is that we believe the wrong things on specific doctrines. It is that we don’t, as denominations, believe anything at all enough to care about it. As Christians I believe the incarnation should be at the center of all we do, but that doctrine has to be a living thing in our lives so that we cannot imagine being without it. It has implications in our lives (“Christ in you, the hope of glory” – Colossians 1:27), and those implications must be important. If we don’t have Christ at the center, then we are simply another social service organization, with a bunch of excess religious baggage to make us less efficient. Why should people get on board? The place of Christianity in this kind of social activity is redemptive, empowering, life-giving, and motivating, a body filled with the breath of the Holy Spirit, ready to act. That must be the case for Christianity to have a great impact. Personally I haven’t tried to take a position on global warming as such, because I don’t know the science well enough to defend any position I take. But I do know that there are good things that I can do, things that make sense whether global warming or global cooling is correct. In doing those things, “the love of Christ urges me on” because I am called to live a life empowered by the incarnation, guided by the two laws, one of which is love for my neighbor. For those who do not read scholarly works it may seem strange to feel bereaved when someone whom you have never actually met dies. I discovered via Levellers that Dr. Brevard S. Childs has passed away. He will be missed in Biblical scholarship, and though I never met him, I am deeply sorry that [...] The blog of Florida Citizens for Science (of which I am a board member) is reporting that “Dr. Cheri Pierson Yecke, K-12 chancellor for Florida’s Department of Education, has apparently hired a company called ReputationDefender to search the Internet for information about her and, on her behalf, challenge items she disputes.” You can find more on the particular item in dispute here. Dr. Wesley Elsberry, who originally posted the information, continues to look for confirmation, and in the meantime has posted a note immediately following the quotation, indicating this information is disputed. That seems to be a very responsible way to handle the information. What is the importance of this issue? As a public official, Dr. Cheri Yecke should be held accountable for her statements about public policy. If a correct quote is disputed, that is a significant matter for such a person. On the other hand, if this quote were proven to be incorrect, it is important that the record be corrected and indicate Dr. Yecke’s actual position and record. My own position is that consensus science should be taught in the public school classroom, and the scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution is well confirmed. We interrupt the usual flow of commentary on this blog for something both baseball and personal . . . My stepson John Webb is pitcher of the week for the PCL, according to this MiLB.com story. John allowed only three hits in 8 shutout innings while earning the win against the then-division leading Nashville [...] A recent comment by seeker accuses me of condescension: It would be hard for us to have a conversation on this, because your condescension is so thick it would be like climbing uphill through dirty axle grease. What interests me is that if a moderate or liberal remains quiet or speaks tolerantly of another position, he or she is regarded as wishy-washy, a typical liberal who won’t take a stand. On the other hand, if a liberal is so gauche as to take a stand on something, he is condescending. This sort of accusation often comes from people who have made a habit of being condescending, usually in a moral of spiritual sense. This is no exception. Seeker refers me, amongst other posts, to this one, in which he accuses the vast majority of the scientific community of being deluded. He even titles the post Mass Delusion. There must be some special gift of chutzpah given to someone who can write such a piece, and then accuse someone else of being condescending. In fact, Seeker invited me to critique a post he had written, and in that post there were a number of accusations raised against those of us who are Christians and also evolutionists. Apparently the only option he wishes to leave us is to acknowledge the great wisdom of his post and become convinced creationists. But unfortunately he fails to provide any reason to do that. If it’s condescension to point out where one disagrees with another, then I’m guilty. If it’s condescension to require that someone provide some sort of evidence, then I’m quite guilty. My liberal tolerance allows me to say that I’m fine with having a variety of views on origins in the Christian community. At the same time, simple honesty calls me to point out that I believe that creationists, whether of the young earth, old earth, or intelligent design varieties are wrong. The extent to which they are wrong differs. At the same time, I have no problem with them telling me that they believe that I’m wrong. We can both take those comments for what they’re worth. Now for just a couple of points of non-response in seeker’s comment: 1. One of seeker’s original accusations was that I was using “evolutionary thinking” rather than “scientific thinking.” I called him on it, and how does he respond? Perhaps you can do a little self-examination, and, using your impressive intellect, postulate on what ideas might be evolutionary thinking rather than scientific? Are the two synonymous in your opinion? Then what do you think a creatoinist would say? So I am supposed to provide my own accusation and then defend myself against it. That’s not how it works. You tell me how my thinking is not scientific, using examples from things I have actually written, and then I’ll be glad to defend myself. Otherwise your accusation is simply yet another unsubstantiated claim. 2. Seeker states: “Creationists HAVE proposed full orbed models for origins.” Great! Point out where these models are, what they predict, and how this is being scientifically tested. 3. And then,
- you appear to assume evolution to be fact, which to me is intellectual suicide On what possible basis would you suggest that I assume evolution to be fact? At what point did I say that, imply that, or give any reasonable person a reason to suppose it? No, it’s just a standard creationist attack line to see if an opponent will fold to a bluff. I believe that the theory of evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain the data. None of the potential explanations by creationists have anything like the explanatory power and the confirmation by numerous lines of evidence from various branches of science. This “philosophy of Darwinism” is a figment of some people’s imagination. There are those who draw unjustified philosophical conclusions from the theory of evolution, but calling them “Darwinists” is a slur on Charles Darwin and his tremendous scientific accomplishments. 4. Finally, in an attempt to appear prophetic, seeker announces that I will not accept any of his arguments. I’m sure you’ll find none of this satisfactory, and find all kinds of supposed faults with my answer. Why am I sure? Because I’ve argued with evolutionary believers before, and you sound like one of the faithful. I presume this is because he knows they are so weak. Or, NO! It couldn’t possibly be! Is he being condescending? |
|
||||
Copyright © 2012 Henry E. Neufeld - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa 
|
|||||
Recent Comments