RE: [asa] TE Evangelists

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun Apr 13 2008 - 15:40:08 EDT

Evolution is a topic best avoided in sermons. How many pastors that have the gift of preaching also are gifted in understanding fully the pros and cons to evolution? I suspect the preachers are more gulible to YECers who are more bold and argue for a simple reading of Genesis. Last Sunday, our wonderful and gifter pastor stated in the sermon that evolution only works in micorevolutionary ways -- changes in variety, but new speies. Further, the customary derogatory tone was used regarding the unlikelihood of man evolvling from ooze and apes. He also stated that "scientific evidence must be recreated to be considered valid", implying that evolution is therefore invalid until science can observe one species become another.
   
  Though he is a great pastor, I know how great is his lack of knowledge and understanding of science; it's comenserate with his lack of interest in it. So much so, that I have no hope he would care to visit with me, or others, to gain a better understanding of the real weight science carries or the confluence that exists that supports it. His sermon was likely meant to passify many within the Church; like a shepherd calming the flock.
   
  Unfortunately, I fear this approach will cause faith to become more of a blind faith. As this happens, it becomes far more open to ridicule, where doubt becomes much more nourished.
   
  I agree that evolution discussions is best in an educational environment. Do you mean in the school system, or is there some education of this matter being conducted within the Church?
   
  GeorgeA
   
  
John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
      v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } o\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } w\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } .shape { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 12.95pt 12.95pt 12.25pt 12.25pt; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } ADDRESS { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } SPAN.EmailStyle18 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal }
 SPAN.EmailStyle19 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } 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
  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:
   
    
   When, exactly, did science begin? Please be specific and concise- 5 sentences or less.
   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 15:42:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 13 2008 - 15:42:09 EDT