Perhaps. But look at your title. It’s not about identifying you.
“Tim Keller is not an EC” isn’t about you being labeled.
I agree, but that’s not so much what I’m referring to here.
My point is that favoring labeling over ideas comes off as tribalism, as in the title of this thread.
Really? That never even crossed my mind…
In a group where “ID-all caps” is very different from “id-no caps” … there doesn’t seem to be much about the title of this thread that is out of the ordinary…
It is both though, both approach and our position. I don’t understand why that isn’t clear. We separated because we have different positions, not because of an “internal disagreement.”
Which is why I commonly say I’m not EC.
Fair enough be he also is a person who has chosen to separate from EC.
It’s hard to know exactly what to think now … but in the early months, when I would ask BioLogos folks about the Geneal.Adam approach … virtually every one of them said it was better to explain the figurative nature of the Old Testament than to pander to the idea that God would create Eve from a rib.
That’s when I knew they were doomed as they were conceived at that time. They might save themselves yet though…
Hi Joshua,
Allow me to try to help you understand how the situation looks to many “outsiders.”
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.
These dozens of denominations often arose because of sharp disagreements among the founders and organizers. Oftentimes today some members of one Presbyterian denomination or the other are vehemently opposed to being associated with at least some of the others.
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. The fractiousness often seems to be the result of particular broken relationships–particular disputes between particular individuals and/or cliques.
The way I see Presbyterianism is the way I tend to see PS and Biologos and the label “EC.” I don’t see “EC” as an organizational membership identifier, just as I do not see “Presbyterian” as an organizational membership identifier. 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Do you disagree with this part?
It should be obvious that Behe and I are using different definitions of evolutionary creation. As I said in my piece, there is no official governing body that sanctions such things, so Behe is free to define his terms the way he wants.
Totally agree that Behe is making up his EC definition, but that isn’t Stump’s main point. I agree with many of his minor points, such as this. It’s not like we inhabit different realities.
So it looks to me like you have some differences on how to approach the interface between science and evolution, and that’s the actual point of difference not evolutionary creationism as such.
False it is EC as such. Why make me repeat myself? I am not EC and disagree with EC. I reject it personally, though they are welcome here.
Perhaps you need to define what you mean by EC, because @Mercer, @Jordan, @T.j_Runyon, @Chris_Falter, and myself are all clearly missing something. This might not be because we’re all failing to read what you write. It may actually be because of what you’re writing (or not writing). Like this.
You don’t need to enumerate them, but if you don’t enumerate them then maybe you should expect people won’t know what they are.
Fair enough.
I understand EC as one theological brand of TE, the brand curated by BioLogos. I get that you don’t see it this way, but I see EC as connected to BioLogos as ID is to the DI. It is primarily a theological voice, and largely out of touch with the theological traditions I’m connected to and out of touch with science itself. Moreover they have a history of unethical behaivior that I want nothing to do with, especially because it shows no signs of abating.
There are many other people out there that affirm evolution as Christians. Just because they do does not make them EC.
Now do you want me to list out salient differences?
I think you’re being highly prescriptive with the terms EC and TE, as opposed to Biologos, who are not being prescriptive about the terms at all. So as others have pointed out, this isn’t simply about you rejecting the term for yourself, it’s also about you taking it on yourself to decide if other people are or are not EC, according to your own definition of the term. I don’t see Biologos doing that either.
According to your personal definition. If they think that it does, then it does.
Sure, that would be helpful.
No one here has been qualifying what they write with words such as “When I say EC I mean EC as it is commonly used in North America”. If that’s what they really meant, then they’re not doing a good job of being clear. Is this the case for all the terms used here? When you say “evolution”, do you mean “evolution as it is commonly defined in North America, not elsewhere”?
I agree, but that wasn’t the issue in question. The claim was made that Biologos actually coined the term. They didn’t coin the term, or the concept, or their particular model. There’s nothing new about their version of EC. At least DI has a new version of ID, which is historically dislocated from earlier versions of ID.
We are in agreement here. EC was not coined by them, but is now linked with them, at least in my context.
I will give you one to start, the way we handle scientific errors. First of all, every one makes mistakes. I certainly do. BioLogos certainly does too. Everyone does. Making mistakes or errors is not necessarily a big deal.
When I make a mistake, I try to quickly correct it, as publicly and clearly as the mistake was first made. I understand this as a basic standard of trustworthiness required of every scientist that engages the public. I have even admitted mistakes made by other scientists I’ve worked with, and that has not always been easy. This, however, is the price of admission if I want to be a trustworthy public voice on science.
BioLogos does not have this standard. They make scientific mistakes far more frequently. They do not usually correct them. When they have corrected them, they do so months later, only because of external public pressure. Their instinct is to protect their reputations by denying or hiding mistakes, rather than acknowledging and correcting them publicly. This is the same sort of behavior I’ve come to expect from DI (though they usually just deny, rather than hide). I understand it as profoundly anti-scientific, let alone unethical and untrustworthy.
This is not merely a procedural difference. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience. I cannot work with them because they oppose normal scientific cultural expectations such as this. This is one example where I see very high similarity between DI and BioLogos, and very high divergence from secular scientists.
So that is one. Does it make sense?
What I mean is that the setting of these conversations implicitly defines the terms being used. This entire forum implicitly presupposes a North American setting, given that most of the books, people, and events discussed here live and happen within that context. There is no need to qualify every word we use here by specifying which geographic location we are referring to. This is how normal people converse. Notice how I don’t link to dictionary definitions of every word in this paragraph?
On the other hand, if for example I was writing for an Indonesian audience, I would indeed make sure that my audience understands the terms I used much more carefully.
Well, I hope we do not presuppose North America that strongly. There are a lot of internationals here.
When I refer to North America, I mean North America and everyone who is effectively in that “orbit”. Book publishing and the Internet allows the evangelical community to effectively reach beyond North American borders. But most of the main actors are all living within the American evangelical context. Even for those who are not, when they speak on the subject, they seem to be responding to concerns and questions coming predominantly from American evangelical theologians and scholars. Look at this thread and its focus on Tim Keller.
This is unsurprising - because evolution, creation, and Adam seem to be hotly debated issues mainly in this context, with its history of Scopes, Dover, Kansas, DI, and so on! If we truly had a world focus, I doubt that we would be talking much about Peaceful Science. For example, I very much doubt that dialogue between scientists and theologians is anywhere near the top list of priorities of Indonesian Christians.
We also include @jongarvey prominently, and @Andrew_Loke may be the most quoted theologian in my book.
Yes, Andrew Loke is a Hong Kong theologian, but how much his work that is quoted in the GAE book is one which is primarily motivated by the needs and concerns of Asian Christians, for example? Of course, I’m not saying that there isn’t an audience for GAE in Hong Kong. I’m just saying that it’s likely lower in their priority list. And even if it becomes a prominent issue, the fact that so much work has been done on that front by American evangelicals means that it is likely Americans will have influence in defining the terms used in that future dialogue.
Also I am very curious if the issues people have raised regarding the GAE (e.g. accusations of racism and polygenesis) will be very different when the theory is discussed by an Asian or African audience, for example. The cultural understanding and experience of racism there is very different compared to the American experience.
Quite a bit. You forget that I am an Asian Christian, and that YEC is very common in Asia, though it is not the virulent scientific creationism we see in the US. One of my advantages in this dialogue is that I was raised in that non-virulent strand of YEC. I’d say that the GAE (and Loke’s work) are very important, for example, for the house churches in China.
That will be important and interesting. That also was one of my advantages. If you look at the history of the conversation over the last decade or so, it has been perhaps 100% white scholars who all have a common pattern of tip-toeing around race, or using as a weapon against others, and essentially avoiding the main questions.
As an Indian, I’m not scared of race, so I just entered and dealt with it head on. As you know, quite a bit of my book engages racism and race. I don’t know if any other book on origins does this as something other than an attack on their opponents.
Honestly, if I was white, I’m not sure I could have put the GAE book forward. Every other time it has been put forward, it was immediately shut down as racist.