I apologized, but...

Further to my post from yesterday, I did apologize. What I apologized for was my lack of civility in interrupting my host. There is no precedent for theological debate or discussion in the group, let alone when someone is sharing a devotion. Whether the speaker's thoughts were mindless drivel, erudite scholarship, or something in between, challenging him at that point was tactless. 

I believe his hermeneutical starting point is fatuous, if not dangerous. The future well-being of individual believers generally and that of the Church in North America specifically are jeopardized by teachings that start from a position which lacks knowledge. 

This is not to say people who hold such positions are stupid. Young Earth advocates simply lack information and refuse to accept it because their faith cannot accommodate what God has given humans the ability to learn about the universe that He created. They do not have room within their faith constructs for such a large God. Yet scripture is full of encouragement to gain knowledge and understanding. All truth is God's truth and we need not fear it. 

The Young Earth hermeneutical starting point creates a barrier to spreading the Gospel. People who are knowledgable about the scientific realities humanity has uncovered will never be interested in joining an apparently mindless organization. The Church becomes nothing more than a backward sub-culture, along the lines of the Amish communities that have a negligible impact upon society, rather than the world-changing counter-culture Jesus left in the care of his disciples. I admire such faith for its apparent strength, yet pity it for its calcified, dogmatic outlook.

The Practical Implications of Hermeneutical Lenses

What a person believes is much more important than what a person knows. People approach whatever scriptures they read (the Bible, Quran, Vedas, On the Origin of Species etc.) with hermeneutical lenses already in place. The words people read are understood in light of their innate, natural temperaments and their received, nurtured experiences. Therefore we are all predisposed by what we already understand and believe to come to an interpretation of scripture that is in line with our beliefs. As such the eyeglasses through which we view scripture are equally as important as -- if not more important than -- the scriptures we read.

This postmodern insight confirms that when we approach scripture predisposed to believe that its words are the literal, inerrant, historical and scientific record of God's work in the world, we will leave it believing that scientific discoveries and insights which point in opposite directions are at best in error. At worst we will believe they are deceptions propagated by evil forces, which are in control of those scientists. The implications for human life in the present and future are immense.

Belief necessarily constrains our ability to receive knowledge. For example, the evidence of global warming is ridiculous to those who see an immanent arrival or return of the Messiah on the horizon. Or again, evidence that Jesus lived, and died fits with human experience. We know that people live and die. The testimony of witnesses to Jesus moving among them in the flesh after his death just does not fit. In both cases, the inability to accept the logical testimony of those who say that Jesus rose from the dead, or that the world is warming and human activity is the only logical explanation is not because people are stupid, ignorant, or even uncaring. The issue is the orientating belief structure.

Unless and until people are able to see the lenses through which they view the world, be they theistic or atheistic, scientific or unscientific, they will take sides in the mis-named culture war rather than pursue the truths each "side" knows. Theists will continue to ignore rising temperatures, retreating glaciers, and more devastating natural disasters, while atheists will continue to die without Christ.