Re: [asa] TE Evangelists

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sun Apr 13 2008 - 06:59:06 EDT

We need to be a bit careful about "preaching TE theology." What is to be preached is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the evangel - that's what qualifies one as an evangelist. Certainly it's appropriate to refer to evolution & related matters at times in the course of preaching but a sermon shouldn't just be a lecture on a theological view of evolution. That's best dealt with in educational settings.

The distinction between proclaiming & teaching, kerygma & didache, isn't absolute but ought to be borne in mind, especially by would-be preachers.

I think more examples of pastors who preach the gospel & teach about how to understand evolution theologically would be found if views were broadened beyond the evangelical community. In fact, I'm going to be doing the latter later this morning at St. Paul's, though I'm not preaching on this particular Sunday. (& if I were preaching on today's Gospel, John 10:1-10, probably nothing would be said about evolution.)

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dehler, Bernie
  Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:42 PM
  Subject: [asa] TE Evangelists

  I think it was Denis L. who said he was a little conflicted with those YEC, and OEC, because they preach the gospel, unlike those in the TE camp. I was thinking about it. People like Billy Graham and another major evangelist that I know may be TE or lean towards TE. However, they don't make their views on TE known. They preach the gospel without a central role for Adam and Eve, or may explain Adam in theological terms and skirting the "real person" question. So on one hand, there are YEC's preaching the gospel along with YEC theology, but TE (or TE friendly evangelists) simply just preaching the gospel, avoiding the controversy altogether. Yes, there are no loud TE's preaching the gospel and TE theology. I may be trying that in the future.



  From: [] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
  Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:10 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Was Adam a real person? (ancient science)



  For those who claim there is no ancient science, I have two questions:


    1.. When, exactly, did science begin? Please be specific and concise- 5 sentences or less.
    2.. Is saying "there was no ancient science" like saying "there was no ancient business?" Business today didn't exist in the ANE. Today it is thousands (or millions) times more complicated. Today we have world markets, derivatives, high-speed computer stock trading, board of directors, stock, bonds, futures, commodities, mortgages, various forms of debt (home equity, credit card, reverse mortgage, etc).

  My point, there was ancient science just like there was ancient business, but the "memes" for each have considerably evolved.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 13 07:02:41 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 13 2008 - 07:02:41 EDT