Re: [asa] Creation-Fall-Restoration Paradigm and Pragmatic Questions

David O.,

I was a bit confused on some of what you asked, but in
response to your last question:

I would define hypocrisy to be a disconnect between
your actions and your words. So for example, if you
say you want to practice good environmental
stewardship, but then you throw away aluminum cans
when you could have recycled them, then I would deem
that hypocritical. I think this holds true regardless
of whether you are in the public or private arena;
thus, if you have private reservations about a line of
thought or interpretation, but then act as if you
don't (i.e. say things that would mislead others about
your beliefs), I would classify this as hypocritical.
However, I don't think it's hypocriticial to just go
into "listening mode", in which although you disagree
with things being said, you don't necessarily choose
to volunteer your own viewpoint (you remain silent)
because you're more interested in learning about the
perspectives of others.

As far as unbelief goes (which I take to mean holding
a "heretical" or "non-traditional" Christian view?) I
would say that it depends on the relative importance
of the doctrine in question. For example, I believe
that animals share in eternal life--this might be
considered "heretical" relative to traditional
Christian views--however, I would not term this
"unbelief" because the question of animals' spiritual
lives are not central to Christianity; conversely, if
I believed, or tended towards the notion that Jesus
was not the Son of God (which of course I don't), then
this is serious enough of a "heretical" belief that I
would consider it "unbelief", and that such a person
could not truly be considered a "Christian".

Hope this helps.
In Christ,
Christine

--- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was recently speaking with a pastor who's starting
> a really neat group
> study on the Church's social responsibility. He is
> working in a fairly
> conservative evangelical context, but is admirably
> (IMHO) trying to get away
> from the "culture war" mentality. His study is a
> broad one, following the
> familiar "creation-fall-restoration" theme starting
> with the creation
> narratives in scripture.
>
> So here is a question related to recent discussions
> here: do we need to
> feel uncomfortable with this paradigm generally, if
> we're asking questions
> about exactly what "fall" and "restoration" might
> mean outside a YEC
> context? Is it hypocritical to affirm and support a
> study using this
> paradigm if you would have to do some major nuancing
> of what "fall" and
> "restoration" mean -- or even if you might prefer a
> term like "completion"
> to "restoration?" (I don't think the study in
> question, BTW, deals with YEC
> or any other such specific questions -- I think it
> focuses more on the "what
> does this mean spiritually" kind of theme). If you
> are blessed, or cursed
> as the case may be, with the need and means to
> ponder such questions, do you
> flag it as a question, or let it go and participate
> without raising it?
> When does harboring private reservations turn into
> hypocrisy or even
> unbelief?
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 5 13:38:03 2007