Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism

quote:

---

In my opinion if you guys can present evidence of transmutation you can begin to get to fundies.

---

I must respectfully disagree with ICANT. In my experience, scientific evidence alone is not very effective. Most non-experts cannot objectively weigh the evidence, so they must defer to experts. Christians tend to trust the Christian "experts" like ICR and AIG, because they share the same worldview.I believe the big barriers for Christians are not scientific, but philosophical and theological. It is a worldview issue. Most Christians are aware of Dawkins and his type, who conflate the science of evolution with an atheistic worldview. Most are not able to discern the difference between science and philosophy (worldview). Thus evolution appears to be an atheistic, anti-Christian position. If it is perceived as anti-Christian, most Christians will strongly oppose it. Dawkins' position is counterproductive.Here are some ideas for dealing with "fundies" (note: I am a conservative Evangelical Christian, but not a "fundie"):1) Someone like Francis Collins and his book "The Language of God" is helpful. Collins shows that the science of evolution is NOT inherently atheistic or anti-Christian, but can be incorporated in a Christian worldview. This eliminates the main concern of Christians, that evolution is anti-God. (There are also many other Christians who take a "theistic evolution" position who have written on this topic.)2) I find it helpful to distinguish between science and philosophy/worldview. I point out that the atheistic worldview is NOT a "scientific" position, contrary to Dawkins. It is philosophy/theology, which science cannot speak to one way or the other.3) I am convinced that fundies operate from some faulty theological assumptions. It is usually counter-productive to point this out directly, but I have gotten fairly positive responses by teaching good, orthodox theology directed to these points. (It would require some theological credentials and commonality with your audience to have any effect doing this.)The theological errors that I see are:
a) a quasi-gnostic view of nature; Bible is "spiritual" and "good", nature is "physical" and "bad". I counter this with Ps 19 and the ancient "two books" or "dual revelation" theological perspective (God reveals truth through both nature and Scripture; both are trustworthy.)
b) a quasi-desitic view of nature; the universe is like a clock or machine which runs independently of God. Fundies have the idea that natural explanations somehow "explain away" God's involvement in events. I counter this with Ps 104, Job 38-42, Col 1:17, and Heb 1:3. The biblical perspective is that the universe is contingent; its existence is dependent every second on God's active upholding of it. Hence, God is just as involved in events which occur according to natural processes as those which are miracles.
c) a quasi-docetic view of Scripture; Scripture is fully divine but not human. I would try to teach orthodox theology here (Jesus is both fully God and fully man; Scripture is likewise both fully divine and fully human.) If one thinks through the human aspects of Scripture, he will realize that the biblical authors may have had limited or mistaken ideas about their world (flat earth, solid firmament, etc.). The Bible's infallible, inerrant theological message would have been accommodated to this limited, mistaken perspective of the human authors. So we must distinguish between what the Bible is actually TEACHING from what is simply the cultural background of the authors.I tend to focus more on the age of the earth/universe than on evolution with "fundies", but I've found these three approaches to be more effective than discussing the scientific data.

quote:

---

It is called theistic evolution, where the believer compromises his faith in order to be in harmony with the evolutionary science he has been indoctrinated with all his life. But this is not necessary. We are not rejecting microevolution. We agree that there is great variety and diversity among species and within species. We disagree at the point where it is claimed that one species has morphed into an entirely new species. Also, we don't teach science in church any more than we should teach religion in a science class.

---

Do you realize that James Orr, one of the authors of the Fundamentals (from which "fundamentalism" derives its name) was a theistic evolutionist? And that B.B. Warfield (champion of biblical inerrancy) was as well? And that G.F. Wright (another of the original fundamentalists) was open to the idea? I don't think these men fit your characterization of theistic evolutionists as "compromising their faith".

quote:

---

Those who adhere to a theistic evolutionary viewpoint have reduced the Bible to being nothing more than an allegory or a non-literal work.

---

I believe you are overstating things. They may view the Bible LESS literally than you do, but this is not the same as NON-literal.

quote:

---

They think everything in the bible is therefore just symbolic.

---

No, this is an overstatement. They don't view EVERYTHING as symbolic.

quote:

---

True fundamentalists believe that Scripture is meant to be taken literally, except where instructed by the content to take it otherwise.

---

What about James Orr and G.F. Wright? Were these two original fundamentalists not TRUE fundamentalists? That would be odd!I generally agree with your idea, but your caveat is too narrow. I believe there are other indicators that a passage is not to be taken literally.

quote:

---

If the creation story is not literal then how does one know what is literal (if anything) in Scripture? Was Jesus a literal person? How does one know the difference between what is literla or symbolic if not through the actual context of the Scripture itself? If Jesus is not literal, then is our salvation literal? Is Heaven Literal? Do you see the problem?

---

I think you are making the problem much bigger than it really is. Do the mountains literally "shout" and the trees literally "clap their hands" (Is 55:12)? If this is not literal, is our salvation literal? Is heaven literal?NO ONE takes EVERYTHING in the Bible literally, not even you. Figuring out how to interpret the text is not just a simple, formulaic task. It requires some thought and study to do properly. But this doesn't make everything fall apart like a house of cards.

quote:

---

I know almost nothing about James Orr myself, but looking at the Wikipedia Article on James Orr it would seem that while the term he applied to himself was "theistic evolutionist," the meaning of the term has apparently evolved with time and today he'd be thought of as a progressive creationist.

---

Perhaps so, though I believe he was open to more aspects of evolution than most who call themselves "Progressive Creationists". There seems to be a good article here, though I've only skimmed it:
http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1999/PSCF6-99McGrath.html

quote:

---

It does seem to me that Kelly's reconciliation of his religion with science comes from an unconscious but at least somewhat purposeful misunderstanding of the nature of science, as is clear from his criticism of naturalism and his lack of understanding of how theories become accepted. This is very typical of fundamentalists, and we should be exploring how best to deal with this mindset.

---

I agree. Fundamentalists often have a fear (or at least a distrust) of science, based primarily on the perception that science is in conflict with the Scriptures. This perception, in turn, is due to a number of things. These include a blurring of the distinction between science and philosophical naturalism (e.g. by Dawkins et al), a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is done, and biblical/theological misunderstandings about the trustworthiness of nature and the interpretation of Scripture.I suggest that the best approach to deal fundamentalists is to address all of these misunderstandings.

quote:

---

The liberal voices in the churches have long been reluctant to say anything too critical about fundamentalists, on the grounds that they have every right to live by the beliefs they feel most comfortable with. In view of the obvious devotion and commitment displayed by fundamentalists, liberals have often leaned over backwards to accommodate their viewpoint. That tolerance continued even after fundamentalists became more assertive from the 1960s onward.

​

Although tolerance is always commendable, it unfortunately slows down the educative process. A great gap has opened up between biblical and theological scholarship on the one hand, and what went on at the parish level on the other. The ordained ministry, on the whole, failed the churches by not passing on to their congregations what they themselves were learning at their seminaries. Because they did not wish to upset their more conservative parishioners, they often left the churches in ignorance of the radical changes taking place. The time has come, and is indeed overdue, for the liberal voice to be heard loud and clear in the churches, even if it does lead to some controversy. In fact, the churches have always been at their strongest when they have been engaged in real debate, either internally or externally.

---

I doubt that this will be very effective in convincing fundamentalists, however. Fundamentalists are just as suspicious of and resistant to liberal Christians as they are of atheistic naturalists. I think a better approach is to find conservative Christians who the fundamentalists will trust, but who have a broader perspective than modern fundamentalists. I've mentioned a few here already (James Orr, G.F. Wright, B.B. Warfield).A number of present-day writers from an evangelical perspective (not liberal Christians, but also not fundamentalists) could also be helpful, including:
Deborah & Loren Haarsma, "Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution"
Darrel R. Falk, "Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology"
Denis O. Lamoureux, "Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution"
John H. Walton, "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible"
Peter Enns, "Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament"
Kenton L. Sparks, "God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship"