Then you isn't Christian (apparently!!!)
Engaged in a conversation this afternoon with an intense young man over the issue of evolution and creation the conversation turned to whether or not I was a literalist. When I asked what this meant I was met with a bit of a withering gaze and my rather excitable young interviewer challenged me with the words, "Do you believe that creation took seven days?"
With a smile I responded with, "No, I think creation took only six days and God rested on the seventh!" for I can be a bit clever at times. Sensing his frustration I added, "But of course how long the days were is something I'm not sure of, but there were certainly six epochs, ages which were called days and obviously might not have been."
The young man muttered something about praying for me to become a 'true believer' and left me to perish in ignorance I guess! Perhaps he hadn't heard about being a watchman or ever read Galatians chapter six on how to engage with those 'caught in error' (for surely from his response I was he!).
Returning home and leafing (electronically) through the blogs I find eChurch blog making mention of Ken Ham and his comments. Having met a few Hammerites (I assume that's what they're called) I read the comments with interest and have to make a few comments (I did tell my interviewer this afternoon that I'd mention him) about 'young earth' and what appears to be a totally scientifically flawed attempt by some to make science fit a naive and unscientific mindset that demands a literal interpretation to creation and other elements.
Can anyone please tell me why I am headed for hell because I don't believe in literal days?
Can anyone explain why evolution, Intelligent Design and the like define our faith because I don't really give a tinker's cuss about this in relation to the Cross and salvation and as I understand it neither did anyone else on the New Testament Church (or if they did they forgot to mention it in canon!).
Pax
ps. If you can understand what Ham says and prove some veracity exists (scientifically) I'm waiting and hoping.
6 comments:
I fear you'll have a long wait!
I was going to highlight this...
"But of course how long the days were is something I'm not sure of, but there were certainly six epochs, ages which were called days and obviously might not have been."
....And say that I totally agree, but in truth, I totally agree with the entire post.
My major problem with literalists is not even the fact that it is in error, but the fact that it is made to be a salvific issue.
If you don't adhere to their interpretation - ironically they tend to believe they are not interpreting at all - then you are not a 'true' Christian.
This is to add to the work of Christ in my opinion.
Literalists beging with a presupposition, such as: Creation in 6 literal days, and then try to invent science to confirm this.
Firstly, this isn't how science works. Secondly, they open up the attack route for atheists.
The funny thing is, I don't care if someone believes in 6/24, or instant creation, or whatever, but I will not question their salvation. I just wish they'd grant us the same in return.
And then there is the whole question about the various uses of the word "yom" in Hebrew (the "field of meaning")...
BTW did you mean voracity or veracity? The former would probably fit the Hammerites better, don't you think?
And where do you find allthese people, anyway? Tamworth must be the fundamentalist capital of the Midlands if your blog is anything to go by.
It was veracity, fantastic predictive changes stuff and fat fingers often hide little blue box!
Best thus far Lectionary changed to lunar excursion lander (picked that one up because it was so long ).
Think getting stopped and asked was down to a few factors coming together:
i. I tend to acknowledge people. Say 'good morning/afternoon', hello and the like and this appears to give permission to engage.
ii. Having just done a funeral I was in 'clericals' and had full 'ring of confidence' which seems to make me fair game for some! Often find zealous types seekto discuss stuff because they assume dogcollar equals heresy, dead faith or liberal beliefs (whereas they appear to put off anything that might appear to be theological in favour of their 'guru's' teaching which they accept without question!).
iii. Wasn't Tamworth but was Sutton Coldfield, and
iv. The topic was the focus of a meeting in the area last week and I guess this makes it a bit of a current issue.
Discussing being stopped with a colleague, he told me that he never had such encounters and the key was to avoid eye contact, walk quickly and if stopped, explain how he was on his way to a meeting and couldn't stop
He reckoned I brought it upon myself because I was 'too friendly'.
Guilty as charged I guess - I love the people bit of the Anglican priestly role and so just have to accept it as part of the job. Mind you, being honest, some times I do think, "Oh no, why me?" or like the bowl of Petunias, "Oh no, not again!"
Pax
ps had to split reply into two as reply box wouldn't let me write any more???
Post a Comment