More of the Same

Over at Jesus Creed, the evangelizing for Darwinian Christianity continues.   This time a reprint, calling on quotations from respected Physicist and Anglican Priest John Polkinghorne.  While the article attempts to show a way to reconcile the worlds of science and faith, it demonstrates a few ways in which the TE crowd still just doesn't understand why other theists refuse to go where they are leading.

Blogger RJS comments:

Competition occurs when science is taken as competent and sufficient to answer metaphysical questions … or when theology is taken as required to answer mechanistic questions about the nature of the universe, from supernovas, to the diversity of life, to the progression of seasons and development of storms, to the reason why the Mississippi flows from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico rather than vice versa."

TE has often misunderstood the very heart of the theological viewpoints that stand in opposition to Theistic Evolution.  Who really argues that theology answers "mechanistic" questions about the universe?   Who argues that the Bible directly addresses the question of the direction of the Mississippi river?  While some may ask the question "how might a narrative relate to the physical universe" and speculate on the implications,  there is no real suggestion that the Bible itself speaks as a science book.  The primary issue is not that the bible answers "mechanistic" questions, but whether it is true when it touches on historical ones.

If the  events in the New Testament or the Old Testament including early chapters of Genesis did not happen, that changes the Biblical narrative itself, and thus changes the meaning of the text, changes the theology.  That is the central question, and TE tends to put that question in a box and hide it safely away.

The "Narrative" of Genesis 1-11

I've long been fascinated by the use of the term "narrative" in progressive theological circles.

Usually, the word is used in one of two contexts, either to bash more conservative theological perspectives as "too focused on literalism" or "missing the scope of the narrative".

What fascinates me about it is that most who make a big deal about the narrative of God's redemptive history are also those who insist that Genesis 1-11 has little or no basis in actual history.  Adam, the Garden of Eden and the creation account were written for pre-scientific cultures as a way of explaining that the Hebrew God was better than all the other gods, and the accounts have no bearing on the central focus of the New Testament on Christ inaugurating a New Kingdom.

Why is this fascinating?

Because what they have done is completely altered the narrative.  Those who insist we only focus on the narrative have altered its very meaning.

An analogy is in order.

OK - Never Trump, Never say Never

Not so long ago I indicated I was a "never-Trumper".   I thought then (and still think) the tactics of his campaign were unconscionable and destructive.  It went beyond political "hardball" and veered into ridicule and character assassination.   And I was not convinced his policy points, vague as they were, would be the best for the country compared to the other candidates.  I had no reason to trust that his presidency would lean conservative.

Today, I still wince at every tweet and wish he would stop the outbursts.   That does not mean I think he should be soft on those who have unfairly attacked him - only more articulate, specific and less personal. 

But when it comes right down to it, in spite of a congress stocked with Republicans who once again have betrayed their own campaign promises on immigration, tax reform and health care, Trump has quietly done a number of things that any conservative should be cheering.

The Problem of Unity - Part 4

So here is my attempt at an answer. Once we have categorized those things which the majority of Christians agree are true essentials and not denominational distinctives, I would propose something like this.

1. Focus on what has historical consensus. That is, lead with those things that are NOT controversial. Make the focal point the three ecumenical creeds and the canon of scripture. I trust most do attempt something of this sort.

2. Seek mediating positions on matters in dispute since the Reformation. This means nothing less than to acknowlege that not everything has been settled. Our denominational positions on this topic or that may have a lot of thougt behind them, but that does not give them universal status. There has to be dialogue on those items not etched into the fabric of history in the creeds. Rather than merely trumpeting a particular view as settled, listen to the other side and state your perspective with humilty.

3. Avoid topics that are of recent contoversy or of lesser importance. I rarely think much of dispensational views of end times prophecy any more. It may be fun but it is not of central importance.

But once again, this is not what I feel we tend to do most often, and this is why we fail to find unity. Instead we push particular denominational distinctives to the top of the list, we use those distinctives to separate ourselves from other groups and as a result the essentials fade into the background.

Postmodernism and Leftism

Over at American Thinker, Paul Austin Murphy has a piece called "Postmodernism is Leftism" that perfectly articulates things I've felt for a long time.  The thesis is that as socialism fell out of favor in the late 60s, philosophers committed to a leftist worldview constructed a new set of ideas, consciously or not, that kept socialist ideas alive.  

He builds his article on a book by Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault .   Hicks ties part of his thinking to a religious commitment to socialism.  “You feel that socialism is true; you want it to be true; upon socialism you have pinned all your dreams of a peaceful and prosperous future society and all your hopes for solving the ills of our current society.”
Whatever the motivation, Murphy writes "It can be said that skeptical epistemology, deconstruction, etc. are all means to achieve the political ends which can't be sustained by truth, evidence and argumentation."  

I've written here many times that the denial of objective truth cannot lead anywhere good.   I've objected to postmodern nonsense time and time again.   If there is no objective truth, and truth is a "mask to power", than all that is left is raw battle for power.  If an existing political and social order is to be replaced, it first has to be delegitimized and destroyed.   If that cannot be done by argumentation, then it is diabolically cunning to cut the roots away from the very concept of argumentation and truth.