Past tense/present tense

I had a great conversation with one of my coworkers Friday afternoon, just minutes after I made my last post.

"I noticed how you wrote everything in the past tense," he said. "And it bothered me. I kept wondering when the 'other shoe' would drop."

I laughed. "I don't know that I permitted one shoe to drop!"

But I knew what he was talking about. I had felt the same even as I wrote the post. I was concerned how people might interpret my use of the past tense: "I was taught," "I said," "I dared," "I learned," "I knew," "I was committed," "I believed," "I . . . confessed," "I was convinced," "I planned," and so forth. -- "What about today? What are you thinking and feeling and believing today?"

"Where are you going, John?" he asked. "If you are heading toward faith, I need to hear that. If you are heading toward shipwreck of your faith, I want to hear that, too, because, frankly, I don't want to listen to it. I don't want to be bothered by it. I don't need to be disturbed in that way."

I want to be careful, here. I am not quoting him exactly, and some of the phrases I have just used may not accurately reflect the real thoughts and intentions of his heart. But I think I have summarized the basic gist of what he said: "I don't want to and I don't need to listen to someone who is trying to tear down my faith."

Whew!

I told my conversational partner that I had written as I had very deliberately, not because I was trying to hide anything, but

• Because I was seeking to give history. I was describing where I was. I was not attempting to say anything about where I am today.
   
• Because I am trying to describe a process. And I am attempting to bring people through that process with me.
  
  If I were to "admit" up-front that I am as committed to young-earth creationism as I ever was, then I will likely lose most old-earth creationist aficionados who happen to be reading . . . And if I "admit" up-front that I have "finally" committed myself to an "old-earth" perspective, then I will likely lose most young-earth creationist aficionados who happen to be reading . . .
  
  And I don't want to do either. I think there are very good reasons for both groups to read what I have to say.
  
  • I think most old-earth creationists have no idea what really motivates a lot of young-earthers to hold onto their views. Look at the majority of old-earth books and I think you'll find at least this weakness in every one of them: they don't deal with the biggest, most fundamental issue of biblical authority.
    
    At the same time
     
  • I think most young-earth creationists have no idea why old-earthers are convinced some of their views about and their methods of "arguing" for biblical authority are problematic.
  So,
• I'd like to attempt to drag both groups through a process, hopefully, of "listening" to one another.
  
  And,
• Honestly, I myself am still in process. I am working things through as I write and even "in" and "by" my writing. As I said on Friday, I was only "modestly familiar with the basic teaching of--and the proof texts contained in--the Westminster Confession of Faith" (though I have no doubt I would have--as I put it--"happily and wholeheartedly confessed what the Confession would have demanded of me (had I been required to make such a confession)"). Same thing with The Battle for the Bible, the ICBI, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I said "I knew nothing of [the movement] till years later." (But I have absolutely no doubt I would have readily lined myself up with the advocates on that side.)
  
  I find it hard to imagine I didn't hear at least the names of these things at the time that they broke into public view. Indeed, I imagine I was aware that they existed. My point, however, was and is that the things they were arguing for were really of no concern to me . . . because I was wholly uninterested in and undisturbed by the alternative views, the things they were seeking to protect and/or argue against.
  
  I can't say that anymore.
  
  And I hope that explains at least a bit about the significance of my use of past tense on Friday:
   
• One thing I know for sure has changed over the past few years in my faith, belief, knowledge and thoughts: I am now at least aware of [a goodly number of] the alternatives in these areas. And I am aware not only in the sense of knowing that they exist, but in the sense that I can sympathetically understand (at least some of) motivations and reasons why advocates for these alternatives advocate as they do . . . whether I agree with them, their reasons and motivations, or not.
  
  I am no longer comfortable.
  
  Thirty years ago, ten years ago, indeed, even three years ago, I don't think I could have said that. I knew people thought differently than I and my conservative evangelical/fundamentalist compatriots. But I had, at best, only a very, very foggy idea of what they might think and believe--let alone why.
  
  Oh.
  
  And having just said what I have, I realize I should probably make one last comment.
   
• I said I am still in process and that I am now aware of alternatives in a way I wasn't [___ many] years ago.
  
  Reality: The kerfluffle over Enns' appearance at the Cincinnati homeschool convention a few weeks ago motivated me to read his book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. I had not read it before. (Interestingly, however, I had read--a couple of months ago--G. K. Beale's response to Enns: The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority.)
  
  I discovered that Enns highlights ("opened my eyes to") several problems I had not considered before. He also expresses several ideas and suggests a number of "solutions" that, similarly, I had never considered before. Many of his ideas are similar to what I am--just now--reading in books by John Walton.
  
  But notice what I said: I am just now reading these things.
  
  Readers of this blog who have followed my personal blog for several years will recognize that I first came upon the idea of "concordist" and "non-concordist" interpretations of Genesis in January of 2009. At the time, I didn't even know what the word "concordist" meant.
  
  My point:
  
  • Yes, things have changed in my thoughts and beliefs since 30-some years ago.
    
    • I am aware of alternatives I wasn't aware of before.
       
    • I am, just now--in many ways, over the past 27 months or so, but in others, only in the last few months (beginning when I took, what for me was a bold step, of beginning this blog)-- . . . I am just now beginning to permit myself to educate myself about the alternatives. (Yes, I have been paralyzed in many ways for more than 12 years!)
    And . . .
     
  • That is why I am so desperate to write this blog: Because I am rather well aware that there are very few people in the world who are willing or able to remain in the kind of "suspended animation" in which I have found myself the last dozen years or more.
    
    And if they are unwilling or unable to maintain that kind of "suspended animation," I am deeply concerned about what they will do.
    
    • Maybe consider committing suicide (as I did, at least for a few hours, in 2001, largely because of how I had been treated by a number of my conservative evangelical/fundamentalist brothers and sisters).
       
    • Maybe they won't just consider committing suicide; maybe they will follow through on that thought! After all, if the entire reason and purpose for which they have been living--to glorify Christ! to honor and love and serve Him! to advance His Kingdom!--is suddenly torn away from them (because, according to the young-earth creationists who follow people like Ken Ham, if you dare to consider an alternative to their view, then you are a compromiser and an enemy of the Gospel [one who follows teaching that is "destructive to biblical authority and the gospel"]!) . . . --If the entire purpose for which they have been living (or, at least, thinking they have been living) is suddenly torn awy, then what is the purpose for continuing to live?
       
    • Maybe they won't commit suicide. Maybe they will "simply" "fall away" from pursuit of Jesus. After all, if, as Mr. Ham teaches, your failure to believe in a young earth and creational activity exactly the way he does means, automatically, that you are "attacking God’s Word by [your] false teaching"--i.e., you are either committed to his perspective (and, therefore, on the side of God's Word), or you are against him (and, therefore, attacking God's Word).

And maybe with that last point, I should reference a couple of blog posts I have run across in the last few days as I have worked on the follow-up to Friday's post.

Cliff Martin, for example:

Those who have encountered (whether by choice or not) [what many view as] the irresistibly compelling evidence behind the science of evolution . . . find it increasingly difficult to go on pronouncing their shibboleths correctly.

???

What does he mean by that?

I’ve been corresponding on the web with a Christian, a wife and a mother of young children, who just so happens to hold a PhD in science. Put simply, she . . . knows way too much to go on pronouncing all her shibboleths in the accepted form.

Let me say amen to that! Not about knowing too much. But, rather, about the issue of pronouncing one's shibboleths in the accepted form. I know a little about that. From first-hand experience.

I know--from personal, first-hand experience--that in some homeschool circles, if your curriculum merely includes a book that, on four pages out of 160, total, speaks positively about evolution--even if and as you, the curriculum developer, very deliberately suggest (for the benefit of your young-earth creationist customers) ways to "read around" the references and/or to skip the short passages altogether: If you carry such books, you will be banned from their conventions.

Moreover, for such people, apparently, it is never appropriate--not even when you're trying to train children to respond appropriately to such works--to read the works of real advocates for other perspectives. After all, say these homeschool leaders, the arguments put forward by these oppositional advocates might prove persuasive. Or, at least, attractive. Therefore, the only acceptable mention of alternative perspectives must consist of predigested, dismissive, derogatory summaries of and comments about the alternatives.

My problem: I have found these kinds of summaries are usually unfair, inaccurate, and too simplistic. Moreover, the dismissive, derogatory, often ad hominem forms of response are inadequate to prepare me (and, it is becoming clear, inadequate to prepare many young people) to respond appropriately to the challenges that the alternative views present.

So for those of us who find these responses inadequate: Where are we supposed to turn?

Cliff continues the story of his friend:

Many of the things she knows with clarity are at odds with the beliefs of her church leaders and friends. That she struggles with doubt is not surprising. I know of few evolutionary evangelicals who do not. And many of us who have come to understand that the Bible is not the . . . word-perfect book it is hyped to be, deal with doubt, at times heavy and oppressive. . . .

So my friend is in the violent throes of painful doubt. [But a]t a time when she most needs the support of her faith community, when she needs to be embraced and accepted by her pastors and friends, she is instead “preached at”, she is told that her doubts must be the result of some secret moral failure. She is haunted by the pulpit finger-pointing which identifies doubt as sin. She fears being punished for her doubt. . . . She finds herself increasingly isolated, turned out, because group-thinking Christians are taught to fear, as part of an invading force of evil, those unable to pronounce “shibboleth.” . . .

My experience is similar to my friend’s. As I take a few steps back from the accepted traditional theology of the evangelical church to which I belong, that very church keeps nudging me to step further away. I am asked to keep my concerns to myself. When I try to warn my friends that the edifice of Christianity is supported by [what appear to me to be] pillars of styrofoam, I am told things would go better for me if I would just keep it to myself. I am told that the personal rejection I endure on so many fronts is my own fault. I come on “too strong”, they tell me.

Yep. So, without meaning to, I think I have just revealed--or, rather, Martin has revealed--a reason why some questions can't be asked: If you're concerned for the "little ones" or those who are "weak in faith" (Matthew 18:6--"[W]hoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea"; Romans 15:1--"We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves" and 1 Corinthians 8:9,12--"But take care that [your behavior] does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak . . . Thus, [by] sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ"), you can't ask your questions . . . because you don't know with any confidence to whom you can turn without possibly hurting their faith.

And so, it seems, the only time you are permitted to ask questions is when you already have the answers! And if you can't figure out the answers for yourself? Or you find the answers provided by such leaders as Mr. Ham just . . . a little too . . . problematic?

Tough!

******
One more quote from a blog. This one from Steve Douglas’ Undeception blog: Evolution and evangel[ical]ism:

Karl Giberson posted an essay entitled “Evolution Matters” that tells why he thinks it’s something we can’t ignore.

Most parishioners probably think evolution is false, but mainly they just don’t need to think about evolution at all. Why should a pastor engage a topic that seems irrelevant when it will certainly lead to controversy?

Despite these perspectives I think evolution is far more important than most Christians appreciate. The reason why it may seem like a back burner topic is that the people with the questions have left the church and taken their questions elsewhere. If they and their questions were still in the church then their voices would be heard and the issue would seem more pressing.

The distinct possibility of apostasy seen in so many cases following a convincing encounter with mainstream science is a concern of mine that I have repeatedly emphasized. Giberson elaborates on the E. O. Wilson example:

Wilson was raised a Southern Baptist and was quite devout as a child. But he was taught that his faith and evolution were incompatible. He went off to study biology at the University of Alabama and learned, to his surprise, that the evidence for evolution was compelling and, like virtually all serious biologists, he accepted it. This, of course, meant he had to reject the Christian faith of his childhood.

What I want to highlight is that those who view the evolution/creation debate as less important than evangelism are missing the forest for the trees: sure, you might get more people to “make a decision,” but what is it that you’re telling them they’re making a decision for? Surely the Christian life exists for more than replication: that’s more a characteristic of cancer than of a healthy organism, more like the Borg than the Federation. But more importantly, if you convince people that our faith in God is but a consequence of being right about certain important matters of history recorded in the Bible, then their becoming convinced at some later point that the mainline evangelical view is wrong on matters such as creation is surely going to rock the world of anyone you convert. Isn’t it best to teach them to put their faith in God alone and view theology as a fallible understanding of Him and His ways?

I am persuaded that those grounded in their faith, by which I mean those having experienced God through profound life experiences, not those cocksure of the infallibility of their theology, are less likely to reject God than those who have done as the creationists urge and hung the whole shebang on the reliability of their sources for theology, i.e. preachers, Sunday School teachers, and high-profile evangelicals who decry evolution as a mere “creation story for atheists” (Kirk Cameron).

. . . And I can hear my readers say, "Okay, John. You've made it clear. We know where you're coming from. Obviously. You are a skeptic. You're opposing Ken Ham. You're pushing for Peter Enns, John Walton, Steve Douglas, Cliff Martin, and the views of every other skeptic you can find."

And I will tell you, straight up: "No. I'm not. And no. I have not made it clear. You absolutely do not know where I'm coming from. Especially if that's what you think."

I think these guys (the "skeptics") have a lot for us to think about and learn from. I think, absolutely, we need to listen carefully to them. But there are a bunch of things they say that also drive me crazy.

Can we discuss these things?

"Well, why do you only say positive things about these guys and you only say negative things about Ham and conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists?"

Hold on! Hold on!

1. I have not said only positive things about "these guys."

And,

2. I have not said only negative things about Ham and conservatives.

On the other hand, I believe the majority of my audience is conservative--or strongly leaning conservative--and so I want to address them (you). You--conservative!--are most likely to want to reject whatever I say about an Enns or a Walton or Douglas or Martin. And, I expect, you are likely to do that partially because of the preconceptions you have been given by people like Mr. Ham. So, yes, I have, indeed, been attempting to knock Mr. Ham down a bit off his pedestal even while I have attempted--at least a little bit--to introduce you to some people of whom you are likely either completely unaware or concerning whom you have a strong negative bias.

I intend, soon, to deal with what bothers me about these "other guys." But you have to know what they are saying first. At least I hope you agree with me about that--that you should know what your ostensible opponent is saying before you criticize him for saying it!

Meanwhile, I haven't yet gotten around to laying out what the conservative evangelical/fundamentalist side has said. I haven't gotten into what I called the details of my own upbringing and what I was taught to believe and what I "happily and wholeheartedly confessed," without hesitation, when I was younger.

I would like to get to that next, I think!