Re: TE and the Church (was Chance and the Hand of God)

Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:35:45 -0500

At 3:15 PM 2/8/96 -0500, Eddie G. Olmstead, Jr. wrote:
>Eddie Olmstead
>>>I think I probably have a different intended audience for these ideas than
>>>you
>>>might expect. My goal is to be able to find ways to explain to my
>>>non-scientific creationist friends that evolution is not the evil "bogeyman"
>>>they think it is. :-)
>
>Brian Harper:
>>This goal is highly commendable. I decided to do exactly the same thing
>>about a year and a half ago. I have two interests really in the evolution
>>creation debate. The first is purely academic, i.e. I find the various
>>topics immensely interesting. The second is a concern for the impact
>>that this controversy has on the Church (a) internally and (b) externally,
>>i.e. in the perceptions of non-believers. One way to diffuse a lot of the
>>internal tension is to argue that theistic evolution is a viable theological
>>view. That it can be and actually is for some the preferential theological
>>view and not a second-choice compromise. I think it is very admirable if
>>someone is willing to argue this in spite of what their own position happens
>>to be.
>
>I am, like you, concerned about the effects of rejecting all forms of
>evolution are having on the Church. Currently I don't reside in the land of
>theistic evolution, but this is based more on personal preference rather
>than any compelling evidence. :-) I am interested in exploring all of the
>theologically viable lands to live in just in case I am ever forced to move.
>I'm not too thrilled about burning bridges that I may need to cross someday.
>Since I pretty much hold to a doctrine of inerrancy, I don't think I'd be
>happy living in every theistic evolutionist's home. However, I think many
>people may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater when they rejected
>all forms of evolution.
>

I find I'm pretty much in agreement with both of you. My particular burden
is to take the gospel to scientists and intellectuals. I have discovered
that many of them will listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, _once_ they
have become convinced that they will not have to accept the young-earth
view of they accept Christ. And I've had some success with some of them.

That brings us to the next problem. You've won a scientist over to Christ
and you want to recommend a church to him. Today, I would unhesitatingly
recommend my own church, not because there are no creationists, but because
there is general agreement that issues like the age of the earth are not
even secondary -- they are irrelevant -- compared to the really important
issue in Scripture: redemption. But there was a time in the past whaen I
couldn't have made such a recommendation. We had a vocal group of
young-earth creationists who had set a goal of making creationist clases
available for every age group in our Sunday school. I attended one they
taught for the high school age group, and while they had promised to stick
to scripture, it really had the flavor of a pop biology class with some bad
probability theory thrown in. These people were downright nasty to those
who disagreed with them.

Providentially these people have left our church. We didn't drive them
out. I just think they got tired of trying to pry the rest of us away form
the Gospel.
But, for people who express doubts about the yung-earth creationist
scenario to be shouted down in church is wrong.

So my second goal is much like Eddie's and Brian's: To help the Christians
in the pews -- regardless of their scientific background -- realize that
Christianity is about Jesus Christ, and science is about objects in the
material world and their interactions. Yes, there are connections. We all
know there are. But it seems to me counterproductive to try to impose our
views of what, specifically they are on those who disagree.

Frankly I'm uncomfortable with applying the theistic evolutionist label to
myself. I have creationist friends who call me that, but I have PC and TE
friends who claim my views can't pass muster for TE. But where I will
absolutely stand and fight is on the premise that Christianity is about
Jesus Christ. Not about the age of the earth. Not about the means that
God may or may not have used to develop life. And most assuredly it's not
about imposing our views and solutions of origins problems on others,
especially when they are nonbelievers who ought to be led to Christ and
then _welcomed_ into a Christian church.

---Whew! I feel much better now.

Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)