Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[Wayne in Maine]

There's a cautionary tale here:

https://peacefulscience.org/why-i-went- ... evolution/

Our arguments about evolution usually do not call people to Jesus.

I have had similar encounters with people who wanted to seriously follow Jesus but who were pushed away by Fundamentalist (even Fundamentalist Mennonites) insisting that rejecting the evidence that creation occurred billions of years ago is necessary to be a a follower of Jesus. It is one of the reasons why I too have not remained silent on this issue.

I propose that we turn this Fundamentalist "Gospel" around. Preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God that Jesus did, make disciples, teaching them to obey all things Jesus commanded. Reject those who preach a gospel that do not accept as literal the Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain - and recognize the inconsistency and meaninglessness of their claim of the high ground of biblical literalness. Take what Jesus said literally, teach that Jesus meant every word that He said and encourage seekers to apply that. Then see where the Holy Spirit and a life of faithful discipleship leads a disciple in regards to what "The Word of God" means and the relevance and the meaning of Genesis.

I would add too that I like the articles on that site Peaceful Science. One particular article by Daniel Ang caught my attention Is evolutionary science in conflict with Adam and Eve?. He approaches the question by referring to several different models that reconcile biological evolution with the existence of Adam and Eve. The point I like, among others, is that this is an open question - a theological one with several possible models to reconcile the issues.

I think it is arrogant and conceited to dogmatically insist that one has to accept a particular answer to these difficult questions (of what we observe in nature differing from one's reading of the book of Genesis) before being taken seriously as a seeker or as a follower of Jesus. I think it would be better to put a millstone around one's neck than to let that dogmatism lead a sincere seeker after Jesus (one who as already concluded that Jesus meant every word that He said) be driven away by biblical interpretations developed and promoted (often for profit!) by people who don't even take Jesus's words seriously.

[MaxPC]

In my experiences, there are people who have decided what is true from their perspective and according to their understandings. When I start a query, I like to listen to opinions and viewpoints without engaging in debate as it provides a) a venue of receptivity to those views and b) honors the person who holds opinions without necessarily feeling the need to agree with them.

I do find the range of Anabaptist views on this topic reflective of much of that which I have seen and heard in other sectors of Christendom. That is quite interesting to me.

[Ken]

There's a cautionary tale here:

https://peacefulscience.org/why-i-went- ... evolution/

Our arguments about evolution usually do not call people to Jesus.

I have had similar encounters with people who wanted to seriously follow Jesus but who were pushed away by Fundamentalist (even Fundamentalist Mennonites) insisting that rejecting the evidence that creation occurred billions of years ago is necessary to be a a follower of Jesus. It is one of the reasons why I too have not remained silent on this issue.

I propose that we turn this Fundamentalist "Gospel" around. Preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God that Jesus did, make disciples, teaching them to obey all things Jesus commanded. Reject those who preach a gospel that do not accept as literal the Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain - and recognize the inconsistency and meaninglessness of their claim of the high ground of biblical literalness. Take what Jesus said literally, teach that Jesus meant every word that He said and encourage seekers to apply that. Then see where the Holy Spirit and a life of faithful discipleship leads a disciple in regards to what "The Word of God" means and the relevance and the meaning of Genesis.

I would add too that I like the articles on that site Peaceful Science. One particular article by Daniel Ang caught my attention Is evolutionary science in conflict with Adam and Eve?. He approaches the question by referring to several different models that reconcile biological evolution with the existence of Adam and Eve. The point I like, among others, is that this is an open question - a theological one with several possible models to reconcile the issues.

I think it is arrogant and conceited to dogmatically insist that one has to accept a particular answer to these difficult questions (of what we observe in nature differing from one's reading of the book of Genesis) before being taken seriously as a seeker or as a follower of Jesus. I think it would be better to put a millstone around one's neck than to let that dogmatism lead a sincere seeker after Jesus (one who as already concluded that Jesus meant every word that He said) be driven away by biblical interpretations developed and promoted (often for profit!) by people who don't even take Jesus's words seriously.

Christianity is by far the most diverse religion on the planet in terms of the variety of sects, denominations, and factions who disagree on various points of doctrine. There really isn’t a remotely close second place. And the fundamentalist belief in a literal interpretation of the writings of Genesis is a minority within Christianity. BioLogos, which is a faith-based science web site does polling on this topic and finds that only far less than half of Christians adhere to literal young-earth creationism.

I don’t know if doctrinaire insistence on literal readings of Genesis turn people away from Christianity completely, or just the versions of Christianity that are most insistent on Biblical literalism. But around here the churches that seem the most popular and growing the fastest with younger converts are evangelical non-denominational community churches that honestly spend about zero time and effort on Old Testament teachings. And if they crack the Old Testament at all, it is mostly just for the poetry like Psalms and Ecclesiastes, rather than the history. I don’t think that is a coincidence.

This poll is from the BioLogos site: https://biologos.org/

[Wayne in Maine]

Christianity is by far the most diverse religion on the planet in terms of the variety of sects, denominations, and factions who disagree on various points of doctrine. There really isn’t a remotely close second place. And the fundamentalist belief in a literal interpretation of the writings of Genesis is a minority within Christianity.

I don’t know if doctrinaire insistence on literal readings of Genesis turn people away from Christianity completely, or just the versions of Christianity that are most insistent on Biblical literalism...

Do "Kingdom Christian" type Anabaptists want to hitch their wagon to the biblical literalism and anti-intellectualism of 20th century Protestant Fundamentalism or to the Christocentric literalism and intellectual depth of Early Anabaptism?

[Soloist]

I propose that we turn this Fundamentalist "Gospel" around. Preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God that Jesus did, make disciples, teaching them to obey all things Jesus commanded. Reject those who preach a gospel that do not accept as literal the Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain - and recognize the inconsistency and meaninglessness of their claim of the high ground of biblical literalness. Take what Jesus said literally, teach that Jesus meant every word that He said and encourage seekers to apply that. Then see where the Holy Spirit and a life of faithful discipleship leads a disciple in regards to what "The Word of God" means and the relevance and the meaning of Genesis.

Sounds good to me.

I think it is arrogant and conceited to dogmatically insist that one has to accept a particular answer to these difficult questions (of what we observe in nature differing from one's reading of the book of Genesis) before being taken seriously as a seeker or as a follower of Jesus. I think it would be better to put a millstone around one's neck than to let that dogmatism lead a sincere seeker after Jesus (one who as already concluded that Jesus meant every word that He said) be driven away by biblical interpretations developed and promoted (often for profit!) by people who don't even take Jesus's words seriously.

A sincere seeker will believe what Jesus taught above science. Jesus quoted from the Old Testament. Why would God seek to deceive us as you say by writing a false account of creation? About the creation of man? About where the rainbow came? about a global flood? Dogmatic faith is appropriate for Christianity but not science.

We can agree to disagree but I would take the words of Scripture above secularists any day. You describe it as a millstone, I in no way would say that you cannot be saved because of what you believe, but generally the people that believe like you also dismiss much of the Scripture as a story with good meanings but can't possibly be accurate as it is not observable in nature. You holding to Anabaptists views with a belief in Evolution is beyond rare.
I would point out that you are saying I am arrogant, conceited and should have a millstone around my neck. That is pretty strong language to condemn your opponent with. Would you be offended if I said the same to you? Perhaps you should rethink your words to a brother in Christ, unless you believe I'm not one.

If you are not speaking about me or those who actually believe the Scriptures at face value, then go find a Ken Ham forum where your words would fit.

[Neto]

Christianity is by far the most diverse religion on the planet in terms of the variety of sects, denominations, and factions who disagree on various points of doctrine. There really isn’t a remotely close second place. And the fundamentalist belief in a literal interpretation of the writings of Genesis is a minority within Christianity. BioLogos, which is a faith-based science web site does polling on this topic and finds that only far less than half of Christians adhere to literal young-earth creationism.

I don’t know if doctrinaire insistence on literal readings of Genesis turn people away from Christianity completely, or just the versions of Christianity that are most insistent on Biblical literalism. But around here the churches that seem the most popular and growing the fastest with younger converts are evangelical non-denominational community churches that honestly spend about zero time and effort on Old Testament teachings. And if they crack the Old Testament at all, it is mostly just for the poetry like Psalms and Ecclesiastes, rather than the history. I don’t think that is a coincidence.

This poll is from the BioLogos site: https://biologos.org/

It would be very interesting to see how these different opinions would come out if you limited the data input to only those who believe that the Bible was/is inspired by God in some way. I say this because this is the only concrete basis under which we can claim to know God. All other sources are too subjective and open to any individual 'revelation'. (But the way the statement reads here, it it too vague, because it doesn't deal with specifics such as translation methods, approach to exegesis, how differences in textual evidence are dealt with, etc.)

[Wade]

As an ex-atheist I had to come to terms with what "Science" actually is. True science has past three tests. It has to be observable, repeatable and testable in order to be accepted as fact.

When I realized that nothing about evolution meets the requirements of fact my world began to crumble. I realized that evolution is in fact only a theory. Theories take a level of faith to believe.

Unless an atheist can comes to terms with understanding an element of unknown exists in all belief systems they will cling to human reasoning, science, education systems, and etc.

To say some portions of scripture are true or should literally followed while others are not true is a patented Protestant view - not an Anabaptist thought process.

I don't doubt the Anabaptists agreed with Christ since they were Christ-centered,
Matthew 24:38-39
[38]For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
[39]And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

And since Christ believed stories in the Old Testament like the flood - so do I.

[Soloist]

What argument would be raised in support of Christianity from science? How would you convince someone that the resurrection of the dead is true? The coming judgement, and why Christianity is right in contrast to any other religion, and not just another philosophy? Seems to me that using secular science as a litmus test for the Bible won't go well, as the very foundation of Christianity is based on something scientifically impossible (the resurrection of Christ).

[Bootstrap]

What argument would be raised in support of Christianity from science? How would you convince someone that the resurrection of the dead is true? The coming judgement, and why Christianity is right in contrast to any other religion, and not just another philosophy? Seems to me that using secular science as a litmus test for the Bible won't go well, as the very foundation of Christianity is based on something scientifically impossible (the resurrection of Christ).

I like this article, written by a Christian scientist to open the doors for talking to other scientists about Jesus:

Is Jesus Greater Than Anti-Evolutionism?

[Ken]

What argument would be raised in support of Christianity from science? How would you convince someone that the resurrection of the dead is true? The coming judgement, and why Christianity is right in contrast to any other religion, and not just another philosophy? Seems to me that using secular science as a litmus test for the Bible won't go well, as the very foundation of Christianity is based on something scientifically impossible (the resurrection of Christ).

Is it scientifically impossible? Or is it simply not something that current science has the capacity to explain or understand? There is a difference. My iPhone would have seemed utterly miraculous 2000 years ago.

One can easily draw a distinction between New Testament miracles such as water to wine or the resurrection, and Old Testament narratives such as the creation story. The former are simply unexplained by science but not necessarily scientifically impossible. I’m not aware of any rule about New Testament miracles that says they must be scientifically impossible to be miracles. In fact a LOT of scientific research is currently devoted to restoring life and preserving it in inanimate forms….like cryogenics. On the other hand, the Old Testament narratives, if one assumes them to be literal, are in direct conflict with scientific explanations. A 7-day creation that happened six thousand years ago, Noah’s flood coving the entire earth, loading the estimated 8.7 million species from every habitat on earth (from the equatorial rain forests to arctic tundra) onto a single ark and keeping them fed and cared for, then putting them all back across the entire planet, etc.

One can most certainly believe in the New Testament Jesus while being skeptical of Old Testament origin myths. And view the former as a real life person who walked the earth performing miracles, while believing that the Old Testament stories in Genesis are more like the legends that one reads in other contemporary works like the Iliad and Odyssey.

That may not be what YOU believe. But it is utterly consistent with the beliefs of millions of mainstream Christians.