Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
A Matter of Tone and Approach (RJS)

A Matter of Tone and Approach (RJS)

Last updated on: September 14, 2010 at 5:39 am by RJS

A Matter of Tone and Approach (RJS) 2010-09-14T05:39:33-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I (almost) always add an e-mail address to my posts, an opportunity for readers to make more specific (or lengthy) comments or ask questions off-line. I received a several interesting messages last week – and would like to put forth for discussion a composite idea emerging from these disparate sources and from Justin’s post last Friday on doubt.

One of the letters from a reader noted (used with permission, edited for anonymity):

(3) The main point of writing: one enormous obstacle is the general tone of public figures who hold to theistic evolution. Most of my evangelical friends can’t fathom how evolution could be compatible with faith. What’s needed is patient, quiet discussion. What worries me about [some] is the lack of winsome tone and approach (that’s not uniform btw; Falk’s book was excellent, and there’s no problem with the main body of Collins’s Language of God; Waltke, Keller, etc. are gems). I’m wondering how someone like you could use your platform to articulate this problem. In my opinion that is a bigger problem than the [fundamentalist] approach at Southern Seminary. The latter we can overcome via the web, books, etc.; but if the voices available to communicate about science and evolution are not winsome and helpful, but combative and derisive, where does that leave us?

(4) Second main point: … how does Keller’s argument strike you … that we need theistic evolutionists who can work well with others on the spectrum between fundamentalism and atheistic science? If Keller is correct, this would mean that (say) Gilberson’s tone is actually unhelpful and likely to do more harm than good; it may help him get a hearing in the secular sphere, but will be a problem as he tries to communicate to evangelicals.

The argument by Keller referred to here is found in his white paper for BioLogos – you can find it in pdf form on BioLogos or on First Things. I posted on some of Keller’s discussion points last December: Creation and Evolution and Adam and Eve.

The question for today is quite simple (ha!):

When you disagree strongly, and it matters to you deeply — how do you discuss the subject in such a manner that it doesn’t escalate into verbal fisticuffs? What are the most important factors in making it a genuine conversation instead of a polemical debate?

Think about it…

How should we, as Christians, approach controversial topics?

The question raised in this e-mail is part of a broader question – and perhaps at the root of some of Justin’s question from last Friday. In a Christian setting do we gain anything at all of value from a posture of dogmatic certainty? Does such a posture simply box us in and inhibit both personal spiritual growth and the broader spread of the gospel?

Lets take the questions involved in the discussion over a young vs. old earth.

I am convinced that the earth is much older than a literal historical reading of Genesis 1-3 is taken to imply. This isn’t a dogmatic certainty – it is a certainty based on a general familiarity with the strength of the evidence. If someone actually comes up with a convincing argument for the data within a young earth construct I will reconsider – but I will also subject the argument to a stringent test.

I am also convinced at this point that a young earth is not required by Christian theology or an understanding of scripture as the inspired Word of God. But this is a topic worth serious thought. We need a conversation that aims forward to the goal – which is a better understanding and living theology that manifests itself in our practice as Christians. I welcomed Dr. Mohler’s original speech in this regard because it put forth grounds for his position and thus offered an opportunity to respond to the real issues. He did not put forth his views in a dogmatic or condemnatory fashion. Challenging and responding to his statements is not a sign of disrespect, but actually, within the body of the church a sign of respect for a brother. It is a necessary exercise. Again, I am more than willing to consider arguments that counter my current position – but such ideas and arguments will be put to stringent test. Expect me to come back and poke at weakness, and I expect the same from those who consider my arguments and positions.

The same is true of Intelligent Design.

I am more ambivalent about ID than YEC. There are arguments, especially arguments of philosophy and epistemology that are well worth discussion and ID brings this to the table. But here it is even harder to carry on a useful conversation – tone and approach gets in the way. I will not single out individuals – but the guilt is distributed rather evenly in my opinion. If we can come to the table and talk critically, the church will benefit. But this means following Dr. Alexander’s admonition, (not to mention Scot’s frequent refrain) and realizing that we must all deal honestly with opposing views in a form that their proponents themselves would recognize as consistent with their view. This means that we must listen (really listen and try to understand) before responding.

This isn’t a debate or a competition – there are no winners or losers – no one is keeping score – there are only brothers and sisters looking for truth.

And this brings me to my last point – Is the gospel of Jesus Christ something we are trying to protect or something we are trying to share?

Kathyrn Applegate had a post Sunday, Sin in the Church, well worth consideration. In this post she relates a conversation she had with a fellow scientist open to consideration of the gospel.

My friend is a scientist. The other day I asked her if she would have considered Christianity at all if I had told her she had to believe the earth was only 10,000 years old. “No way!” she answered. What she said next surprised me: “People who say things like that are the same ones who say hateful things on the Internet.” We had previously been discussing an unpleasant interaction she had had with a fellow commenter on a Christian website. Being new to the faith, she had asked an honest question, but the person responded harshly, throwing Bible verses around like hand grenades.

The idea of a young earth isn’t what caused my friend’s strong reaction; we both agreed she could have had the same experience with someone from the Evolutionary Creation perspective.

Perhaps the evolutionary creationist would not throw as many bible grenades – but there are other equally deadly devices in the arsenal. Intellectual arrogance can breed contempt. The e-mail I quoted in the introduction noted that the general tone of public figures who hold to theistic evolution is a serious obstacle to the acceptance of evolutionary biology among evangelical Christians. I think this is absolutely true. And I submit that the reverse is also true. The general tone of public figures who hold to young earth creation or Intelligent Design is a serious obstacle to the acceptance of the gospel in our broader, increasingly secular, culture.

Dr. Applegate turned to 1 John 4 in her essay highlighting the need for love. I will turn to Paul – in perhaps his most famous chapter.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor. 13:1-7)

I think the science and faith discussion is of significant importance in our day and age. Having the right answer is irrelevant to salvation, justification, judgment, or even sanctification. But searching for answers to the profound challenges and questions of our day is important for the spread of the gospel and for the spiritual growth of many. We need to face the questions squarely and openly. But if we have not love, and if this love is not transparent in the way we treat others, from the words we use to the integrity with which we deal with their ideas, it profits us nothing – both individually as Christians and corporately as a church. It profits us nothing even if we are 100% right.

Post script. After writing this post I read a post by Justin reflecting on his post from last Friday. The comments below the post – and one in particular, from a person struggling with issues of faith (many of us have been in this position at one time or other) – drove the whole subject of today’s post home with even more force: “for if I was doing research solely on the big blogs like Jesus Creed or Biologos,” the commenter wrote, “I probably would have given up by now, and if anything, the level of discussion on these blogs is probably converting some to become angry atheists.” (emphasis added)

You can disagree with me and argue with me all you want – I aim for a real discussion, not simply the opportunity to hear myself think. But I will also ratchet up the moderation of comments a notch (read 1 Cor. 13 or 1 John 4 again).

What do you think? How should we, as Christians, approach controversial topics – evolution, creation, Intelligent Design, … complementarianism, egalitarianism, … Obama?

What does it mean to love a brother or sister with whom we have significant disagreement?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

You can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Pastoring and Preaching

Science and Faith

Previous Post

September 14, 2010

Almost Christian 7

Next Post

September 14, 2010 Into the conquest

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What animals did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A horse A camel An ox A donkey