Great article Eliot, and your case is both valid and important. I've known and heard similar stories to Rhett's over decades, and I understand why he had his rug pulled out when his young earth creation views were challenged. You are right to identify erosion of trust as the primary problem. I too was brought up on young earth creationist views. Views that were later dashed by collision with reality. It was disheartening to realise young earth creation arguments were based on fallacies like cherry picking, straw man arguments, and other disreputable practices. It was worse to realise I had been told things that were simply false, for that implied Christians I trusted deeply were either grossly incompetent or liars. I went with the conclusion they were (at best) engaging in wishful thinking which is a form of gross incompetence. But by that time I had a whole lot of other better reasons for holding onto christian belief that I'd developed reading Lewis and Schaeffer (along with Camus and Sartre for contrast). I went on to become an international consultant advising companies and governments in Europe, the US and Japan. In consulting I understood better where my well meaning but mistaken Christians had gone wrong. (1) they did not recognise or admit to the limits of their own expertise. (2) They didn't tell the whole truth. (3) They didn't stick to nothing but the truth. (4) They trusted other christians who were equally ignorant but well meaning. We need to handle truth with care, and that means both the truth of Gods Word and the truth of God's Work. Clearly, Rhett's faith was very shallow, and when the tide went out he discovered he wasn't wearing any bathers. It's a pity - it seems he's leapt from the frying pan into the fire. But it's equally the responsibility of Christians who lead him to believe something without good reasons, that couldn't stand up to either scrutiny or the storms of life. God is truth but our knowledge is fragile - we need to handle it with care.
So much of this is so well said, Ian. I totally agree, and I'm glad to hear your faith had already been reinforced by the time you came to doubt some of what you had been taught growing up. Handling the truth with care is so fundamental to the New Testament and the faith itself.
I think you’re touching on something important here. Had I been more exposed to better versions of Christianity when I was in high school (I grew up in SC, so I’m familiar with the southern Christianity Rhett grew up with), I probably would be more open to it. I think the problem is a combination of political, cultural/boundary policing, and anti-intellectual. Namely, there are many unimportant/unessential/denominational things conservative Christians want to push as essential/fundamental/“orthodox” and for those not onboard, it leaves them thinking “oh if this is Christianity, than I’m out.”
Thanks for this, Joe! I think you're right that there are problems with politicisation and anti-intellectualism, especially in some streams of conservative Christianity. I take the concept of theological orthodoxy quite seriously, but I share your frustration about the things you describe.
Great article Eliot. Although, I feel like the bigger issue for Christians is conforming with the world, not overstating the case. I agree with you that making evolution a salvation issue is wrong, but there is degrees of important theological debates, and evolution is certainly one of the more important topics. Is there space for Christians to be confident in evolution or young earth (while not condemning the other person and being sensible)? Because it seems like from this article, you are advocating for a stance that means you cannot stridently believe evolution is wrong or right. Is that what you are trying to say?
Thanks Luke, and thanks for your thoughts. Your question is a good one. I think I'm open to the possibility of Christians being confident that evolution is the right theory *or* confident that evolution is the wrong theory. But I think anyone who is "strident" either way should really have done the homework to back it up, and my impression is that often that isn't the case.
If, for example, Rhett had changed his mind about evolution, but the Christian authorities he had encountered previously had been even-handed and careful in their critiques of evolution, then his change of mind probably wouldn't have shaken his whole worldview the same way.
I'd be curious to know how confident you think it's reasonable for Christians to be about evolution?
I understand and appreciate what you’re trying to get at in this article. But I think it’s the wrong approach, let me explain:
If the proposed solution to the deconversion/deconstruction nonsense is to water down our convictions then we can’t do that. Darwinian evolution is a cultural cancer that was explicitly formed to explain design without a designer, creation without the Creator. It’s fundamentally anti-Christian at the worldview level, and that is expressed in the “scientific” arguments. The problem is, there is not such thing as a brute fact. Everything is interpreted. And unfortunately, pagans don’t know how to interpret a perfectly crafted world that is made by a God they are actively trying to suppress (Rom 1).
This is what I think is missing in this piece - we have too long been okay with compromise as long as we get to keep Jesus. We need to stop allowing pagans to tell us how to understand the world, because having Jesus without a Christian worldview is what got Rhett into this mess in the first place. No one told him “you don’t have to believe the unbelievers who are hell bent on convincing you (and themselves - Rom 1, again) that God doesn’t exist.” Our problem isn’t overstating the case. It’s the fact that we haven’t truly overstated it in a long time and it’s time we start again. We need to start making truly intelligent arguments that show unbelieving interpretations for what they are: brilliant at best, but always missing the mark.
Hi David, I agree that we are not pressing our case as strongly as we aught. Further, you are right to point out that darwinian evolution has been used to lead millions astray.
However, overstating the case always undermines integrity at the end of the day.
We run into problems when we try to avoid nuance that is there. For example, "evolution" means many different things to different people. I find Darwinian evolution (which relies on two random process to work - random mutations and natural selection) to be flawed because (1) it's incompatible with both my understanding of God as a rational person who acts with purpose, but (2) they're also untrue based on science and reason - it is so mathematically unlikely as to have zero possibility. However on the other side I find ample evidence that the earth is not young, and the universe probably commenced with a space-time singularity about 13.5Bn years ago. It also seems obvious that the earlier life-forms were simpler than later life forms, but that evidence doesn't support either darwinian evolution nor young earth creationism. So I would like to see more Christians honestly and with integrity sharing the whole truth, within the bounds of evidence and the Bible, and show young christians there's plenty of room for discovery and learning about HOW God created the world, and the sequence of events, without resorting to the false dichotomy of "evolution" or "young earth creation".
Thanks for your thoughts, David. You and I do seem to disagree about the right approach. Why do you see evolution as "fundamentally anti-Christian at the worldview level"?
I think your statement that "Darwinian evolution ... was explicitly formed to explain design without a designer" is just historically inaccurate. Wasn't Darwin a theist?
I appreciate the response! With an atheist father and a Unitarian mother I think it’s safe to say that Darwin was not an orthodox Christian. The subtext here is that of course he sought to explain creation without a Creator - because he never really believed in one in the first place.
Great article Eliot, and your case is both valid and important. I've known and heard similar stories to Rhett's over decades, and I understand why he had his rug pulled out when his young earth creation views were challenged. You are right to identify erosion of trust as the primary problem. I too was brought up on young earth creationist views. Views that were later dashed by collision with reality. It was disheartening to realise young earth creation arguments were based on fallacies like cherry picking, straw man arguments, and other disreputable practices. It was worse to realise I had been told things that were simply false, for that implied Christians I trusted deeply were either grossly incompetent or liars. I went with the conclusion they were (at best) engaging in wishful thinking which is a form of gross incompetence. But by that time I had a whole lot of other better reasons for holding onto christian belief that I'd developed reading Lewis and Schaeffer (along with Camus and Sartre for contrast). I went on to become an international consultant advising companies and governments in Europe, the US and Japan. In consulting I understood better where my well meaning but mistaken Christians had gone wrong. (1) they did not recognise or admit to the limits of their own expertise. (2) They didn't tell the whole truth. (3) They didn't stick to nothing but the truth. (4) They trusted other christians who were equally ignorant but well meaning. We need to handle truth with care, and that means both the truth of Gods Word and the truth of God's Work. Clearly, Rhett's faith was very shallow, and when the tide went out he discovered he wasn't wearing any bathers. It's a pity - it seems he's leapt from the frying pan into the fire. But it's equally the responsibility of Christians who lead him to believe something without good reasons, that couldn't stand up to either scrutiny or the storms of life. God is truth but our knowledge is fragile - we need to handle it with care.
So much of this is so well said, Ian. I totally agree, and I'm glad to hear your faith had already been reinforced by the time you came to doubt some of what you had been taught growing up. Handling the truth with care is so fundamental to the New Testament and the faith itself.
I think you’re touching on something important here. Had I been more exposed to better versions of Christianity when I was in high school (I grew up in SC, so I’m familiar with the southern Christianity Rhett grew up with), I probably would be more open to it. I think the problem is a combination of political, cultural/boundary policing, and anti-intellectual. Namely, there are many unimportant/unessential/denominational things conservative Christians want to push as essential/fundamental/“orthodox” and for those not onboard, it leaves them thinking “oh if this is Christianity, than I’m out.”
Thanks for this, Joe! I think you're right that there are problems with politicisation and anti-intellectualism, especially in some streams of conservative Christianity. I take the concept of theological orthodoxy quite seriously, but I share your frustration about the things you describe.
Great article Eliot. Although, I feel like the bigger issue for Christians is conforming with the world, not overstating the case. I agree with you that making evolution a salvation issue is wrong, but there is degrees of important theological debates, and evolution is certainly one of the more important topics. Is there space for Christians to be confident in evolution or young earth (while not condemning the other person and being sensible)? Because it seems like from this article, you are advocating for a stance that means you cannot stridently believe evolution is wrong or right. Is that what you are trying to say?
Thanks Luke, and thanks for your thoughts. Your question is a good one. I think I'm open to the possibility of Christians being confident that evolution is the right theory *or* confident that evolution is the wrong theory. But I think anyone who is "strident" either way should really have done the homework to back it up, and my impression is that often that isn't the case.
If, for example, Rhett had changed his mind about evolution, but the Christian authorities he had encountered previously had been even-handed and careful in their critiques of evolution, then his change of mind probably wouldn't have shaken his whole worldview the same way.
I'd be curious to know how confident you think it's reasonable for Christians to be about evolution?
I understand and appreciate what you’re trying to get at in this article. But I think it’s the wrong approach, let me explain:
If the proposed solution to the deconversion/deconstruction nonsense is to water down our convictions then we can’t do that. Darwinian evolution is a cultural cancer that was explicitly formed to explain design without a designer, creation without the Creator. It’s fundamentally anti-Christian at the worldview level, and that is expressed in the “scientific” arguments. The problem is, there is not such thing as a brute fact. Everything is interpreted. And unfortunately, pagans don’t know how to interpret a perfectly crafted world that is made by a God they are actively trying to suppress (Rom 1).
This is what I think is missing in this piece - we have too long been okay with compromise as long as we get to keep Jesus. We need to stop allowing pagans to tell us how to understand the world, because having Jesus without a Christian worldview is what got Rhett into this mess in the first place. No one told him “you don’t have to believe the unbelievers who are hell bent on convincing you (and themselves - Rom 1, again) that God doesn’t exist.” Our problem isn’t overstating the case. It’s the fact that we haven’t truly overstated it in a long time and it’s time we start again. We need to start making truly intelligent arguments that show unbelieving interpretations for what they are: brilliant at best, but always missing the mark.
Hi David, I agree that we are not pressing our case as strongly as we aught. Further, you are right to point out that darwinian evolution has been used to lead millions astray.
However, overstating the case always undermines integrity at the end of the day.
We run into problems when we try to avoid nuance that is there. For example, "evolution" means many different things to different people. I find Darwinian evolution (which relies on two random process to work - random mutations and natural selection) to be flawed because (1) it's incompatible with both my understanding of God as a rational person who acts with purpose, but (2) they're also untrue based on science and reason - it is so mathematically unlikely as to have zero possibility. However on the other side I find ample evidence that the earth is not young, and the universe probably commenced with a space-time singularity about 13.5Bn years ago. It also seems obvious that the earlier life-forms were simpler than later life forms, but that evidence doesn't support either darwinian evolution nor young earth creationism. So I would like to see more Christians honestly and with integrity sharing the whole truth, within the bounds of evidence and the Bible, and show young christians there's plenty of room for discovery and learning about HOW God created the world, and the sequence of events, without resorting to the false dichotomy of "evolution" or "young earth creation".
Thanks for your thoughts, David. You and I do seem to disagree about the right approach. Why do you see evolution as "fundamentally anti-Christian at the worldview level"?
I think your statement that "Darwinian evolution ... was explicitly formed to explain design without a designer" is just historically inaccurate. Wasn't Darwin a theist?
I appreciate the response! With an atheist father and a Unitarian mother I think it’s safe to say that Darwin was not an orthodox Christian. The subtext here is that of course he sought to explain creation without a Creator - because he never really believed in one in the first place.
I don't know a lot about Darwin so I'll have to take your word for it. But why do you think the actual view is contrary to Christianity?