tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35139337.post8828629195544156244..comments2022-04-01T15:19:09.110-06:00Comments on The Elusive Guanaco: Evolution and the Churches of ChristUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35139337.post-11269315611912837552012-05-09T15:36:50.863-06:002012-05-09T15:36:50.863-06:00Brenton, thanks for the comment! I think you and ...Brenton, thanks for the comment! I think you and I have very different experiences with Revelation in the SC movement. I was raised in a church with a very strong premillennial view, in which the time, times and half a time correspond to 3.5 years, and in which the Left Behind series has done sound hermeneutics. So you may be right that in some churches there is a hypocrisy in how they interpret scripture, but my church was quite consistent!Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18029046130272045007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35139337.post-22141428675654785492012-05-01T17:30:26.714-06:002012-05-01T17:30:26.714-06:00An important post, Matthew. I'm an openly pro-...An important post, Matthew. I'm an openly pro-evolution (or, I say, pro-what-Genesis-is-really-talking-about-which-isn't-science, but that's a long catch phrase) lay pastor and academic from the Stone-Campbell restoration movement. My shift came from trying to read the Bible authentically, rather than evolutionary evidence. I am not a scientist, but I am a critical thinker. I've read "Origin of the Species" and looked at the basic evolutionary evidence and argument, and it works logically. <br />I do have concerns on 2 fronts: 1) a kind of imperialistic approach to the topic among scientists that smacks of self-critical blindness; and 2) the social application of evolution, which is deadly.<br />So I applaud your work. <br />However, I'll take you to task on the opening. The big hypocrisy on anti-evolutionary/6day creation Church of Christ folks is that they apply a literal biblical reading to Genesis 1-3 that they DON'T apply to Revelation 4-22. Ask them about "days" in Genesis, and it is precise; ask them about "years" in Revelation, and it is a big symbolic thing. It is a fundamental inconsistency.<br />I think that Rev 4-12 does need to be read largely like S-Campbell folk read it (as amillennialists), because we determine the genre (apocalyptic) and read it appropriately. So the question is, "what is the genre of Gen 1-3?" Presuming historiography or scientific literature tells us more about our cultural biases, than it does about the Bible. <br />In the end, perhaps they are right, but until we ask the questions, we are merely reading the Bible as a worldly document and placing a worldly framework on top of it.Brenton Dickiesonhttp://apilgriminnarnia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35139337.post-7516451189202486892012-05-01T11:03:46.305-06:002012-05-01T11:03:46.305-06:00If you ever have time to write that article, pleas...If you ever have time to write that article, please let me know! (and if you need a place to post it, it is welcome on here). I am definitely intrigued by this statement of Campbell's.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18029046130272045007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35139337.post-60540031505196110522012-05-01T10:41:46.139-06:002012-05-01T10:41:46.139-06:00Campbell's postmillenialism plays into this a ...Campbell's postmillenialism plays into this a bit as well; he was a believer in historical, scientific and technological Progress. He also described his hermeneutical goal as reading the Bible "scientifically"--a neat little factoid I've always wanted to find time to write about...<br /><br />Really excited about Jamey's work!JJThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14920416765778868736noreply@blogger.com