Re: Who? Me? Coherent? (was Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically)

From: Merv Bitikofer <>
Date: Mon Oct 05 2009 - 23:49:03 EDT

Well, if TE shows itself theologically robust (a conclusion of one of
your paragraphs below) then it would seem to me at first blush that it
will have to de-fuse or at least answer what you called the
"irreconcilable conflict" between science and the Bible in the preceding
paragraph. To my mind it is robust enough to do just that. But
perhaps I speak with the confidence that comes from relative ignorance
of some of the messy issues involved. In that vein, I really appreciate
your final analogy of the theological construction site. Maybe I've
been tip-toeing over some half-finished bridges prematurely. Messy, Messy.


Murray Hogg wrote:
> Hi Merv,
> I don't pretend that my position is entirely coherent so it doesn't
> surprise me that there might be some incongruity in some of my remarks.
> I can only plead the fact that whilst the broad contours of my
> position are reasonably fixed, there is a bit of flux in the details
> which sometimes leads to me expressing things in ways I later think
> better of.
> Thinking of evolution as the "worst case scenario" merely reflects the
> common perception that it is so. Clearly (to my mind) it's easier to
> do Christian theology if one simply ignores evolution. It's perhaps
> not so very difficult if one presumes a neat concordantist view. But
> if one takes a fully blown evolutionist position, then at first blush
> it seems that the Bible and science stand in irreconcilable conflict.
> Historically, I initially started off exploring "Theistic Evolution"
> as a kind of "let's see how far we can push this thing" theological
> inquiry. Specifically, I was really interested to address the claim
> made by some YEC's to the effect that if one rejected a historical
> Genesis then one would have to reject a historical Jesus. Needless to
> say, I think TE shows itself rather more robust than some seem to
> suppose.
> What this boils down to is that my position is not a static one -
> there's a rather constant re-jigging of the various parts as I
> encounter different problems and attempt to resolve some of the
> incoherence which I am well aware lurks in the details (e.g. if one
> considers the recent thread on "the first human" then we have to be
> careful to ask if our theological and scientific anthropologies are in
> agreement - I'm not currently sure that mine are).
> Bottom line, really, is that one needs an ability to tolerate the mess
> of what is, in effect, a theological construction site.
> Blessings,
> Murray
> Merv Bitikofer wrote:
>> Murray Hogg wrote:
>>> 1) That evolution happened - here let me say that I adopt this not
>>> because I have a blind devotion to scientific consensus but because
>>> it provides a theologically challenging 'worst case' scenario.
>> Thanks for all your insights thus far, Murray. This particular
>> remark, however, sounds incongruous with previous remarks (of
>> yours?). If biological evolution and a proper Christo-centric
>> theology fit each other so well or well enough, then what is so
>> 'worst case' about it? Or were you just lapsing into an alternate
>> popular-warfare perspective?
>> --Merv
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG -
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2413 - Release Date: 10/04/09 06:20:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 5 23:49:56 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 05 2009 - 23:49:57 EDT