Re: Why post-Christian?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why post-Christian?

>
> I had earlier offered the following quotation for comment:
> >>
> >> This age into which we are moving has been called post-Christian,
meaning
> >> that the Christian faith has lost control over the conduct of life. The
> >> reason for this is not the rising power of sin; the reason is our
failure to
> >> show how the rising powers of science can be applied to the purpose of
human
> >> existence when this purpose is found in Christ. The blame does not rest
on
> >> the evil of scientific civilization; the blame rests on those of us who
have
> >> responsibility for interpreting the revelation in such a way that the
powers
> >> of civilization can be brought into its service. This we have not done.
> >>
>
> On 6/3/04 2:15 AM, "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a thread of validity appearing here and there in this
> > statement IMHO. And I agree that there is some culpability that can be
> > assigned to some within the Christian community who struggle with
> > interpreting revelation with reasonable fidelity.
> >
> > That said, however, in the statement offered for comment, words like
> > "control of life" and "powers of civilization" portray the landscape in
> > a context of a power and authority struggle. I think that's the wrong
> > framework and is itself symptomatic of part of the cause of much of the
> > loss of influence and attractiveness in the world.
> >
> > ...or so it seemeth to me. JimA
>
> OK, I concede that there may be a bit too much "control and power"
language
> here. However, the idea that there is a power struggle lurking beneath the
> surface of science/religion discussions may not be very far from the
truth.
> One way of describing the power struggle aspect is to pose the question:
Who
> gets to decide what is "true" about such things as the formational history
> of the universe; observation-based science or text-based theology?
>
> What I found more interesting in the quoted paragraph was the author's
> challenge to bring modern, scientifically-minded civilization into the
> service of a concept of human purpose built on God's revelation in Christ.
> As I see it, the message in this paragraph was, in effect, "If our
> civilization has become post-Christian, don't blame science as if it were
> the cause of a rise in sin, blame those of us who have failed to bring
> science into the service of God's revelation in Christ."

        1st, on the original quote: While I agree in large part with the
intent, it makes a considerable oversimplification. Christians themselves
have made considerable contribution to the development & to some extent have
shown how it "can be applied to the purpose of human existence when this
purpose is found in Christ."
Even though some conservative Christians have opposed good science in
dealing with evolution & other topics, they have been some of the most
proficient in applying science-based technology to religious communication.
(I'm speaking of the technical aspects of radio & TV - not the versions of
Christianity they often proclaim.) Medical missions would be another
example.

        Then to Howard's question, "Who gets to decide what is "true" about
such things as the formational history of the universe; observation-based
science or text-based theology?" If (as I suspect) you mean "formational
history" qua history - i.e., the series of events that took place - OK. But
putting it this way suggests suggests that one has to choose between 2 (or
more) versions of history - or start playing the concordism game. In
reality, both observation-based science & text-based theology can say things
that are true about the formation of the universe.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Jun 4 08:06:41 2004