Tim Keller is not an Evolutionary Creationist

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Chris_Falter

All that said…you have asked that a particular label not be applied to you, and I will gladly honor your request.

That is the main thing. Thank you.

@Chris_Falter

I see both labels as identifiers of particular orientations toward certain issues (theological and ecclesiastical for Presbyterianism, the dynamic between science and faith for EC). Yes, you and some Biologos leaders do not see eye-to-eye on labeling and boundaries. Many folks who are not party to the dispute do not see the dispute as amounting to much, just as I and many non-Presbyterians do not see the disputes among Presbyterian brands as amounting to much.

We do see eye to eye on the fact that I am not EC, and that we are taking very different orientations to the dynamic between science and faith. Why would you think otherwise? I am about as far from BioLogos as I am from DI in my orientation. Didn’t you know?

@Chris_Falter

As a non-Presbyterian, this fractiousness does not make sense to me. Certainly some slight differences can be discovered between them if you search hard enough. But what unites them and identifies them as a coherent group in contradistinction to other movements (such as Methodism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc.) is so much more salient than the differences.

I don’t see this as remotely plausible. We are just doing diametrically opposed things. I don’t see much commonality at all. What commonality do you see that isn’t merely superficial? Perhaps you are just focusing on “what” we believe? (except we believe totally different things) Or “why” we believe? (except we have different epistemologies). Or what we are trying to accomplish? (except we are trying to accomplish different things). So how are we similar again?

Take for a moment this article just published by Jim. Do you understand how and I why i disagree with essentially every main point that Jim Stump makes here? If you don’t see why, perhaps you just don’t know my positions. I take a very different approach, with a different “orientation” than BioLogos.

Theology, Science, and the Kingdom of God

@Chris_Falter

Suppose that instead of EC vs. CASE we were talking about different brands of Presbyterianism. Flavors include the OPC, the ARP, the BPC, the CPC, the EPC, the ECO, the RPCNA, the RPCUS, the RPCGA, the RPCHP, the PRC ( not to be confused with the RPC or the People’s Republic of China!), the WPCNA, and the FPCUS. We must not forget the PCA or the PCUS, of course.

The difference here is that we are not talking about fractiousness, but the opposite. BioLogos has a monopoly. There are not 20 other competitors our there, just them. The differences were so great between the monopoly and myself, that I had to part ways. We just have very different goals, values, orientations, beliefs, etc. etc. There is very little in common.

I wonder if the real issue here is that you just don’t know where I am coming from. However, we have been in conversation for a while. I’m honestly not sure where the gap is.

---

One point of clarification, I think that EC is one example of CASE, so it isn’t EC vs. CASE. Rather, my point is that we need more ways of engaging with evolutionary science than merely the BioLogos way. They have had there go at it, and done some good. Not everyone can engage with science the way they do. I certainly cannot. The good news is they are not the gatekeepers. CASE is much bigger than EC. So let EC be its thing, but let’s encourage new types of CASE.

What is so bad about that?