From: hamilton@gmr.com (Bill Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: liberal and conservative Christians(was re:progressive creationism...)
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:40:56 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

Mike Siemon said
...
>
>However, I'm a bit unhappy about the tone of William's constant use
>here of the term "liberal Protestant" -- it has some justification in
>the historical context, but what he describes has little or nothing to
>do with anything in the modern "liberal" denominations.
  
Not my constant use, Hart's. Remember I was
quoting from "The Fundamentalist Origins of the American Scientific Affiliation"
by D. G. Hart in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol 43, No. 4,
December 1991.  I don't endorse Hart's stereotypes. The main point of the post
was Machen's views on evolution. The rest was included because it provided some
background on where Machen stood.  

>There is some
>detritus of 19th century propaganda and knee-jerking when people make
>(mostly meaningless) noises about "Jesus, the ethical teacher."  But
>the only serious advocates of such a position have all migrated towards
>Unitarianism (which was indeed drawing off large numbers of folks from
>the Protestant churches in the late 19th century, which is one reason
>the churches responded by making the sorts of noises which seem to sell)
>or further away from any kind of Christianity.  

Of course there were additional reasons for the splits between liberals  and
conservatives, such as disagreements about qualifications for the ministry,
selection of elders and some of the excesses of the social Gospel. But you are
correct that there's a great deal of misunderstanding, caused to a great extent
by the tendency to split and form a new denomination rather than continue
discussions.

>A tone of caution about
>our doctrines, and a recognition that doctrine is ALWAYS caught up in
>the "traditions of men" that Jesus condemned may look to someone with
>20-pages of mandatory "beliefs" as if we had no faith and no doctrine.
>But 'tain't true.

I doubt that I have any more patience with "20-pages of mandatory 'beliefs'"
than you do. Although in the conservative Presbyterian denominations (mine is
Evangelical Presbyterian) the situation is worse in a sense: the Westminster
Confession is around 200 pages :-). Fortunately we don't consider the Confession
a shortcut for learning what Scripture says. In any case, there is some  human
interpretation involved in any statement of faith or indeed in any study of
scripture.  
 
>
>The Jesus of liberal churches (at least, those I know about) today is
>quite solidly grounded in scripture -- but with the recognition that there
>are EXTREME problems in making blithe statements about historicity in all
>our documents.  

And many conservative theologians know this. There is a problem, however, in
conveying this knowledge to local churches...

>
>> Thus, the process of modifying Christianity to accommodate science showed
>> a lack of intellectual resolve.
>
>It is perhaps a matter of interpretation just how much "intellectual
>resolve" is exhibited by wholesale unwillingness to grant ANY application
>of physical, biological or human sciences to religion.   

When Christianity has something to say about an issue that some branch of
science has something to say about, Christians had better be willing to consider
the criticisms of their position from the other perspective. There is a core of
Christian doctrine which, if perfectly known, would not ultimately conflict with
scientific knowledge, if our scientific knowledge were perfect. But neither of
these conditions is true in the real world.  

...


>> Fundamentalist objections to evolution followed a similar logic.
>> Because Genesis
>> made particular claims about the origins of the universe and humankind,
>> scientific findings on those matters could not be ignored.
>
>No, they can't be ignored (by Christians) -- but neither does this give
>us a predefined basis for presuming any simple relationship of scritpural
>statements to scientific ones, especially not the presumption of medieval
>scholastic sic_et_non debate where all statements enter an artifically
>constructed domain of supposed equivalent reference.  A Christian, at
>least one committed to intellectual consistenscy, will want to think about
>the issues of creation, and of the Fall, in the light of everything we do
>know, or suspect, about the natural world around us (and the findings of
>a scientifically-oriented history.)  It is a bit odd to PREJUDGE that we
>must conclude this examination by talking about these things in the same
>terms as people did 1000 years ago, when they DIDN'T know what we know.
 
>
>The "know" here has a) got to be distinguished from the knowledge of
>grace imparted by the Holy Spirit but b) that too has got to stand in
>some kind of intellectually honest relation to what type-a knowledge
>gives us to understand about ourselves.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The Body of Christ should not check their

brains at the church (or the seminary) door.

Thanks, Mike

Bill Hamilton