>Well put. However, I'm not sure your reverent attitude towards Scripture
>characterizes the larger TE movement. Much of the TE movement is associated
>with (in my view) a far too liberal Christianity. I guess I used the faulty
>argument of guilt by association, but it's hard to put out of my mind.
>
There are at least two reasons why an individual might embrace TE: 1) It
fits into a general program of reinterpreting the scriptures in ways that
we conservative Christians suspect have more to do with the convenience of
the interpreter than understanding what the Scriptures say, or 2) It
resolves inconsistencies that arise in some more literal interpretations.
Reason 1) is rightly condemned by conservative Christians, because it puts
what the individual wants to be true ahead of a serious, reverent view of
the Scriptures. Reason 2) can be a valid Christian response to perceived
inconsistencies between an interpretation of Scripture and scientific
knowledge.
Conflicts between our understanding of Scripture and our understanding of
some scientific facts ought to be an occasion for reexamining both
carefully. A scientist who has studied the scientific knowledge in
question carefully may not see any great need to reexamine it, but if he is
a serious Christian, he ought to have a passion for looking at how he
understands Scripture and carefully considering whether the language
_requires_ the interpretation in question. If it doesn't, he should
consider alternative interpretations that maintain a serious view of
Scripture.
As Augustine said, the important issues are what the Scriptures tell us about
"the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of
heaven":
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the
stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable
eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons,
about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this
knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it
is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
topics; ...
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that
people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such
opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the
writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If
they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well
and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they
going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the
dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think
their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have
learned from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent
expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser
brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions
and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our
sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously
untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and
even recite from memory many passages which they think support their
position, although _they understand neither what they say nor the things
about which they make assertions_.
Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram
libri duodecim) (translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian
Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41)
Book 1 Chapter 19
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)