I've said this before, and I'll say it again...a slippery slope exists in the science v. Christianity debate. Acceptance of evolution opens the door to an open-mindedness and ambiguity over many evangelical sticking points that often cause Christians to transition to liberal, progressive, agnostic or atheist viewpoints (and most conservatives see no difference between progressive Christianity and atheism).
I'll point you towards this Biologos article and its comments for evidence, along with the controversial NYT piece coauthored by Karl Giberson.
The take-home message is that many advocates of theistic evolution hold theologies that are outside of the realm of "Christianity", including people like Brian Mclaren, Karl Giberson and Greg Boyd. And Marcus Borg, the author of the book that led me back to the church -- most certainly a heretic.
My husband and I are further evidence of this slippery slope. It doesn't matter that my husband is still a Christian, albeit a more progressive one (and I agnostic but still open to the faith).
I've learned to shrug my shoulders at all this. I'm not letting myself be pushed away from Christianity merely because the place that seems to be ministering to me is progressive. Besides, I've increasingly felt abandoned by evangelicalism, after being encouraged to embrace evolution by Tim Keller in his "Reason for God" (in which he claims that evolution and Christianity are compatible). The conservative voices of theistic evolution confuse and perplex me. In contrast, mainline christianity offers me the flexiblity to explore with a healthy level of humility over controversial issues.
As such, I'm committed to reading Borg's "The God We Never Knew" and perhaps post a reflection here. Let's see where this slope eventually takes me to.
Catholics accept evolution :) I'd actually be interested on your take of Catholicism. As I read your post and thought about offering that, I thought it was funny that my intuitions say that the trade-off between allowing evolution but having to believe in Mary, saints, and the real body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist don't make for an appealing switcheroo! Funny how that works.
ReplyDeleteRe. theistic evolution, which I don't really understand other than that perhaps it was "god's tool" (?), you might read this article.
I wonder if you want to read some Spong or Crossan? They're pretty far out there if you'd like to at least survey that furthest reaches of what some don't even consider Christianity anymore. It wouldn't work for me. When I hear Crossan say that he doesn't believe in the resurrection but still believes Jesus is god... my head exploded. Just offering two names that came to mind. Good luck!
"Let's see where this slope eventually takes me to."
ReplyDeleteI love this sentence!
Regarding the comments on Biologos, to be candid, those by alan really piss me off. Like this one: "Biologos ought to stop giving forum to folks like McClaren, Boyd and Giberson (nothing personal against them of course), and start featuring only the voices of conservative Christians who hold to evolution."
He reflects the trend I see in Evangelicalism of fundamentalists (i.e. "conservative evangelicals") taking over the movement.
I think Boyd, Giberson, and Mclaren are well within the realm of Christianity in spite of what fundamentalist say.
I started a comment here that became pretty long so I turned it into a post of it's own. I'll post a link here when I'm done with it.
ReplyDeleteI've taken a much need break from religious/faith stuff, but am at a point where I think I can revisit the topic. I really appreciate your perspective.
I finally got that post up. Thanks for giving me inspiration for a post.
ReplyDeleteJust some reflections on my struggle with the slippery slope
Hi, this is my first visit here. I read D'Ma's blog and she referenced you.
ReplyDeleteI am on the atheist end of the scale. Having poked around your site a bit, I have formed some impressions, which may indeed be inaccurate, but shall be modified as new understanding develops.
There are 3 things which strike me at first encounter with your thinking: the desire to resolve doubts, the desire for comfort and community, and the desire to teach your kids what is correct in good conscience.
This was a bit surprising to me since you have a PhD in science. Primary to me is 'what is true?'. All else is secondary to me, and I say that here to hopefully reinforce that idea in you.
Pursuant to 'what is true', the basic tool of science is the question 'how do you know that?'.
When 'how do you know that' is properly addressed, the methodology of science (skepticism and testing) develops and it becomes clear that knowing is relative rather than absolute. Sufficient certainty for reasonable and practical application exists, but being finite creatures with limited minds, absolute certainty is elusive. I know, I know - am I certain that certainty is illusive? - no, just reasonably certain :)
In this spirit, I think it is more important to guide your children in HOW to think than in WHAT to believe. I think it is also good to be able to answer their questions with 'I wonder about that too, lets investigate together', rather than feeding them any doctrine about anything. Disclaimer - I am a childless old bachelor, for whatever that's worth in discussing child upbringing.
In applying the foregoing to your path of questioning, my impression (from your book list) is that you are reading what contemporary theologians say about science and religion. Perhaps some balance in this investigation would be served by examining the ideas of the skeptics straight from their pens, rather than getting it second hand from theologians. Free online are such materials as Forgery in Christianity by Wheless, The Christ by Remsberg, New Testament Narrative as Old Testament midrash by Price, and a website called Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth. Mere Christianity has been well dissected in about 3 pages at Ebon Musings, and in a series of posts lasting nearly half a year at Evangelical Realism starting about June 2010. I list these resources only to counter balance a perceived theistic bias in the titles you listed.
Apologies for waxing prolix!
Hi, Exrelay, I haven't seen you comment anywhere for awhile, and missed you.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that we should all investigate, and be open to truth. Definitely don't feel that anyone should be checking their mind at the church door, like a coat to be taken on and off at will. For myself, if I truly thought that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax, simply and arbitrarily borrowed from pagan mythology, I would not waste two seconds of my time in the church. But, my studies have led me in a very different direction.
A huge part of what brought me personally to Christian faith, was a search for truth.
I suppose, though, where we would differ is that I don't feel that all truth can be determined by human reason alone. And, I'm also comfortable with some unanswered questions this side of eternity.
Have you considered this possibility? It maybe partly that our mind are simply wired differently.
Also, LAC, I wanted to ask if you've ever looked at anything written by the Anglican bishop N.T. Wright? I've really enjoyed a lot of stuff written by this man.
Rebecca.
Hendy: In practice, I really like Catholics b/c they are generally open and not aggressive about faith. I doubt many Catholics believe in the transubstantiation (maybe I'm wrong?). However, all the tradition and liturgy would be so foreign to me, not being raised Catholic...I think I feel more at peace at (progressive) protestant church. I think Spong and Borg are likely very similar in their views (still haven't finished Borg's book). I agree with you that unbelief in a literal resurrection seems akin to atheism to me. But again, in practice, I'm more focused on finding community rather than a place where I fit in 100% intellectually. I like that people like Borg try to synthesize and harmonize their spirituality without sacrificing their intellect or throwing out their Christian tradition. Again, let me emphasize how fluid my thoughts are...I am very much on a journey right now!
ReplyDeleteNate: After spending a few weeks at a progressive church, I am starting to think that most of us "intellectuals" need to leave evangelical fundamentalism...or risk loving in a constant state of discord as we are viewed as rebels or outsiders.
Dma: As I mentioned on your post, thanks for linking me!
exrelayman: I appreciate what you are saying. However b/c of my training in the sciences, I hold a healthy skepticism of our ability to have 100% certainty in any theory or discovery...especially with modern day benchwork that is so challenging, in practice, not only due to the nature of the works, but the politics, unethical practices, and funding obstacles in grants and peer review. My children are still young, but I don't plan on giving them a rosy picture of Christianity, nor will I teach them about an inerrant Bible or stifle their questioning. My family is drifting towards a sort of cultural, progressive Christianity right now...one that is not judgmental of anyone reaching alternate viewpoints nor interested in apologetics. I hope this makes sense...I can't really fully address your questions right now, b/c to be honest, just juggling the demands of life are enough for me lately...In the still of the night, I no longer despair about doubt or question God...I go to sleep (if the nausea or heartburn lets up enough to allow me;).
Rebecca: Like you, I am beginning to find peace with the unknowing, albeit I suspect I'm lean more agnostic than you ...but appreciate being in a thoughtful progressive, kind Christian community. I haven't read Wright, but I suspect he is more conservative than what I am craving for, spiritually and intellectually:).
Best wishes to you LAC. It's awesome that you've found a safe and thoughtful place to explore your questions, and faith. (I understand that Dr. Borg's wife is an Episcopal priest.)
ReplyDeleteHope that the nausea and heartburn will let up soon. :)
Rebecca.