Is the creation/evolution debate taboo in our churches?

Thank you for a really good start to a really good discussion, Arphy. I haven't attended a sermon since my late teens, which was about 40 years ago now -- and the evo/creo debate really wasn't much of an issue at that time, so it should be no surprise that I never saw it discussed in church.But something that I did see in one of the last sermons I attended would be relevant here, I think, and I'd like to know what others -- current church-goers -- think about this. I expect the church I was visiting would be considered a "mainstream Protestant" American church, but I don't know what denomination it was part of (not Baptist, and probably not Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Episcopalian -- sorry, I wasn't a regular attendee, and it just wasn't clear to me at the time.)Anyway, the sermon made a lasting impression on me. The pastor went into detail about a particular passage in the Old Testament, and even though I don't remember most of the particulars of what he said, I do remember how he explained that this passage was meaningful to us today.He spoke about the period of time when this passage was first introduced into biblical text, and about what was happening in history at that time -- not the time or events described in the passage, but the time when the passage was added into the scriptural record. He described what was going on, what must have been on the minds of the people for whom this passage was written, their concerns and fears and hopes. Based on these matters as explained by our pastor, the content of the passage made a lot of sense, not only in what it said, but also in how it was stated.If he mentioned where he got this historical information, it was very brief (and of course I can't remember it); providing references was less important than providing a coherent explanation that helped the congregation to understand the message that (in this pastor's view) the passage was trying to communicate.He may have actually said something about questions or doubts regarding the "truthfulness" of the passage, and his explanation served to make it clear how there was an important truth coming through the text, when viewed in the context of the time and place where it was initially presented. The interpretation being provided to the congregation in that sermon was not a literal one -- the literal meaning of the passage was less important than the symbolic meaning that it held for the original audience.Altogether, I was struck by the compassion and wisdom of this pastor, and after the sermon I honestly felt that I understood the value of the passage, whereas I surely would have never understood it so well on my own. In terms of assessing the "literal historical value" of the passage's content, my own personal sense would have been that "independent evidence" would either be impossible to find, or as likely as not, would have disagreed in at least some details with the passage, and in any case, I couldn't imagine why it should make any difference to me either way. But the crucial lesson from this pastor was that literal historical record-keeping was not the real point of the passage.Thinking about it again now, I can see that even with that pastor's interpretation, such a passage could be readily accepted as divinely inspired. Whoever wrote it could very well have been conveying God's message to the people -- a particular group of people at a particular time. The question then becomes, how does that passage remain meaningful when presented to other people at other times? How do we get to the intended meaning, unless we try to understand what was on the minds of the first audience?Have you heard sermons that take this approach? Are alternate, non-literal interpretations of Genesis and other OT books discussed in church? Does it make sense that preachers and congregations can look for more subtle interpretations that explain why these particular stories are told in these particular ways?{AbE -- I forgot to mention:} I chose the particular message I'm replying to because of this comment: Could you elaborate? How does this relate to a literal interpretation of Genesis in opposition to scientific theories? What do you think should be the "reasons for why we believe" Christianity, and what do these reasons have to do with literal vs. non-literal interpretations of particular OT passages? Can people have reasons for believing in Christ that do not involve ignoring, misrepresenting, or falsely denying physical evidence?Is there a problem with "just helping us to more 'christian living'"? Why would this, taken by itself, be pointless?Edited by Otto Tellick, : added last bit about Arphy's commentEdited by Otto Tellick, : adjusted attitude/tone in the question about "physical evidence"

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I think the question is misstated both ways -- that is, the statement of the question is too general to fit properly under the topic of this thread. I know there are many questions (religious ones) that Christians can "answer properly". I also think that the inability to properly discuss answers for other (scientific) questions is not limited to Christians -- anyone who lacks suitable instruction in scientific methods and in particular fields of research will have trouble with that.If taken as relevant to the thread topic, these questions seem to imply that there is some necessary/essential connection between "arguments for Christianity" and certain literal (scientifically counter-factual) interpretations of Genesis, because that is the central issue in the evo/creo debate -- at least in America, where it is being played out in the actions of religious fundamentalists on public school boards.Personally, I reject that implication, and based on my own limited experience (e.g. the pastor I described in my previous post here), there are people who sincerely consider themselves true and faithful Christians, and also reject any notion that they must renounce astronomy, physics, geology and biology in order to profess their Christian faith.The reason why "these sort of matters" (i.e. literalist creationism) "are never discussed in our churches" is because a lot of churches do not consider these "matters" essential, or even relevant, to their various concepts of Christian faith.The fact that some Christians disagree with that majority position is an indication of what happens when there is no objective basis for establishing a consensus.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I don't know -- it depends...Do you consider it essential to your Christian faith to believe in Young Earth Creationism? If so, then yes, you must renounce astronomy, physics and geology at least, since these fields provide ample evidence that the earth and universe are vastly older than several thousand years.Do you consider it essential to your Christian faith to believe that there really was a global flood within the period of human civilization in the Middle East, after which the only surviving surface life on earth was the crew and passengers of Noah's ark? If so, then yes, you must renounce at least geology and biology, because such an event would have left unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, plainly obvious to researchers in those fields. But all the evidence clearly shows that no such global event could have occurred at any time, let alone within the span of human civilization in the MIddle East.To hold such beliefs is to ignore, misrepresent, or falsely deny the evidence. There's no way around it. The question this raises in my mind is: why would anyone consider such beliefs to be essential to their faith in God/Christ?Apparently, many people have understandings of scripture (and faith in God/Christ) that do not require them to hold these particular beliefs in contradiction to physical evidence. They do not interpret the text that way. The text is presumably still important to them, but not as a factual record of events in history ({AbE:} at least, not as far as the creation and flood stories are concerned; presumably, they do view the stories about Christ as historical fact, which is a separate matter involving no dispute with major fields of science). In that regard, it's pointless to devote church services to the "evo/creo" debate -- it's an irrelevant topic for church-goers.In your other reply to my other post, you said: Can you explain the distinction you are trying to make between "wooden literalism" and "natural literalism"? Is YEC a "wooden literalism" as opposed to OEC "natural literalism"? If not that, then what?With all due respect to scripture and to people who are sincerely devout, I believe it is inescapably in the nature of scriptural text and personal belief that each reader makes the text say what he/she wants it to say -- whether the particular thing they want happens to be something they make up themselves or is something they are willing to accept from some other source (priest, parent, friend, famous commentator, charismatic snake-oil salesman, ...)That's one reason why religious freedom is so important to folks in the U.S., even to those who may not agree with the concept or its enforcement.Edited by Otto Tellick, : added parenthetical remark about history in scripture

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

ALL of the bible? Really? So you think that New Testament, taken on its own, is an insufficient basis for believing in Christianity? (Honestly, I'm not well acquainted with the details here, but I would have thought that the NT would stand on its own, and accepting or rejecting Christianity would rest solely on one's acceptance or rejection of the NT; it is a departure from the OT, as much as it is an outgrowth or extension.) Who said anything about adding common descent, millions of years, etc, to the bible? As I understand it, these things are not at all pertinent to the messages that make up the core and essence of the NT, so there's no point adding them there. And why should it matter to Christians even if anyone were talking about "adding" stuff like this to the OT (which also seems pointless)?If you insist on treating the creation story and the flood story as "claims" whose "truthfulness" must be "evaluated" relative to objective evidence, then you've already left no choice for an objective observer but to reject those claims (or at least view them as grossly overstated and woefully oversimplified, seriously lacking important details). Must that really entail a rejection of Christianity as well?On the other hand, if you think these two OT stories are relevant and even important to Christian faith, then it must be the case that they convey some sort of truth that does not intersect with (or contradict) objective claims about the past -- e.g. some truth about the nature of God, or the nature of sin, or the nature of grace or love or whatever you believe is important about these stories.Edited by Otto Tellick, : (added parenthetical remark in next-to-last paragraph)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Yes, certainly, for every book that purports to be divine revelation (there are many of those). How can it be otherwise, given that such books cannot offer any objective basis for their assertions?Each individual who takes the time to read such a book either rejects the content for whatever reason, or else they accept it, and in accepting it, they adopt an interpretation based either on their own ideas or else on the guidance of someone they decide to trust. It's important to understand that there is no assurance whatsoever that any one individual's interpretation is consistent with the original author's intent. This is a consequence of having only the words themselves, with no objective evidence, as the basis for interpretation. But everyone should go "oh, hey, this directly contradicts another historical narrative, and that other one has a lot evidence to support it whereas this one does not, so this one appears to be inapplicable as historical narrative." This applies when assessing stuff that looks like historical narrative from Rush Limbaugh or the Book of Mormon, as well as from Genesis.It's interesting that you quote a part of the Gilgamesh epic. I don't actually know (I haven't studied it in detail), but I'm curious: which is older, the Gilgamesh epic, or the story of Noah and the flood? The parallels are of course striking, and regardless of their relative ages, it's clear that when the OT was first put into writing, everyone in the Middle East knew some version of the same basic flood story, with a boat and animals.The people who put the OT into writing (these were people, not God Himself) decided it would be taken amiss by their contemporaneous readers, all of whom had heard some version of the flood story since childhood, if the flood were not accounted for somehow in the book of Genesis. So the writers sought for some sort of divine inspiration about how to put it in.Whether or not they got such inspiration is a matter of interpretation on the part of each individual who reads the story. In any case, over the thousands of years since that decision was made, this story in Genesis has been preserved and distributed to an extent far beyond what the original writers could have expected. Also, a lot has been learned about the earth and its natural history -- far more than they could have conceived. If they had known then what we know now, the story would have been written differently -- if indeed it would be included at all.In science, you look at the older research literature, and on the basis of more recent objective evidence, you can work out where mistakes were made or important things were missing in those earlier writings; then you make a progressive record to correct the errors and fill in the gaps. As you do this, you can usually identify the issues where the latest research is still lacking or needs further work.In religion, you either reject or reinterpret old texts, and perhaps you add new text, according to your current belief. If you are reading the text in an attempt to formulate or refine your belief, you will either be getting help from someone else who already has an interpretation in mind for you, or else you will be puzzling out an interpretation on your own (i.e. "making stuff up"). Your choice. Exactly. Many people select the church they go to in order to hear the stuff that they like to believe. I don't have a problem with that. Personally, I choose not to go to any church, because my own beliefs don't agree with any of them. ... in your personal form of religious belief. I think I can understand how that would be unfortunate for you.Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

In the same way a YEC "knows" that every current land creature is directly descended from an occupant of Noah's Ark. I've made these bare assertions about the how the story was first put into scripture because it's the only way the story makes sense to me. The flood story does make sense to me, and I appreciate its importance, given these assertions.But I think there is a difference between my assertions above, and the assertions about the ancestors of current land creatures being traceable to occupants of the Ark. It's a matter of being plausible, as opposed to being directly refuted, on the basis of available objective evidence.As for the essentially individual nature of interpretation for biblical text, as opposed to news reports: the latter are generally attributable and trackable to first-hand observation and confirmable evidence. There's video, documents, and eye-witnesses; responsible news outlets require confirmation before they report.Even with all that validation, of course, there is still ample room for individual interpretation about things like why certain events are happening, what they are likely to lead to, and so on. There's only so much a reporter can tell us. If we do not fully understand a passage, we have no basis for determining whether or not it's "correct" -- it's either ambiguous or it's incomprehensible. When it's a matter of ambiguity, that in itself is not a bad thing. If a text is really well written, it can lend itself to numerous interpretations, and they would all be considered "truthful" by the people who understand the text in those various ways.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.