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

David -

This is something I have wrestled with quite a bit myself. I think
that we serve our fellow Christians best when we have a bias to
fellowship; that is, to enter into an activity with other Christians
with an attitude that our disagreements are "disputable matters" in
the Pauline sense. In a group like you've described, people will be
motivated to attend by their collective grief at what we have done
with the creation God entrusted to us. This grief may to them be
historically rooted in the Fall, but our response to it doesn't truly
depend on the question, in my view. Many participants are likely to
have never heard of the "creation-fall-completion" model. If your
participation allows them to be introduced to what I think we both
agree is a fuller and more profound picture of salvation history, the
group should be richer for it. Plus it could rebut certain
interpretations of environmental stewardship that are not really
biblical (vegetarianism, for one).

Chris

On 9/5/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christine -- I agree, it would certainly be hypocritical to actively affirm
> a proposition you don't believe, and it might not be hypocritical to remain
> silent when a propostition is asserted that you don't believe. But is it
> hypocritical to affirm the general aims, tone, and goals of a program, and
> even to participate in the program, when you are uncomfortable with the
> exact parameters of a specific belief on which the program is based, without
> expressing that discomfort? So, if the program on Christian social
> responsibility is based on a paradigm of "creation-fall-restoration," and
> I'm far more comfortable with "creation-fall-completion", is it hypocrisy to
> participate without expressing my thoughts on that nuance, or is that just
> wisdom in saving that particular discussion for another day?
>
>
>
> On 9/5/07, Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
>

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 14:33:34 2007