RE: [asa] TE Evangelists

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Apr 13 2008 - 09:00:59 EDT

I agree that there is a downside risk to incorporating TE too centrally to
the gospel. One reason why is that I have found that people just aren't
ready for that and you can end up shaking their faith too much and
potentially doing them great spiritual harm.
 
I agree with you Bernie that we shouldn't hold on to beliefs just because we
want something to believe in but I also think that believing in something
even though it may be imperfect or even misguided can be better than not
believing in anything at all. This is a journey and TE is an advanced topic
and not one for every young and fragile believer to have to grapple with
especially if they are facing many more real problems in life.
 
That said however, I am reminded of Ken Miller's presentation which if you
recall I summarized on this list last year under the thread "Evo-langelist"
which I think did a good job of making the case for a Designer even in the
context of Darwinian evolution, i.e., TE, but that was in an educational
setting not church, and as George mentioned that might be more appropriate.
I don't think it is imperative that every believer know that the scientific
evidence shows us that God created us gradually from lower life forms and
equate that with the gospel, but there is definite value in understanding
that the wedge between science and faith isn't as bad as some in the church
make it out to be. To the extent that pastors can help heal that division in
the church, I think that would be a good thing.
 
Thanks
 
John
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:59 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] TE Evangelists

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.)
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:10 PM
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
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 majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 13 09:03:26 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 13 2008 - 09:03:26 EDT