#23-Listening to voices that are not in your camp is a hard but worthwhile experience.

I have a confession to make.  I am a theological snob.  I turn my nose up at any theology that doesn't fit my approved set of standards.  I turn my nose up at theological writings that I assume are going to be way different from what I believe.  Like I turn my nose up at super conservative, young Earth creationist ways of thinking.  I don't think they will ever actually convince me that the Bible is a science book.  But maybe there is a nugget of wisdom in there somewhere that can be helpful.  I usually just completely avoid people who make these kinds of arguments, but is that the right thing to do?  Or if I do read them it is in a dismissive sort of way that is just about seeing how wrong they are.  This can't be the best way to go about it.

I have been thinking about how I can enter into these writings and think critically without being dismissive and snobby towards other people's thinking.  I think it all has to come down to grace.  As I read a piece on homosexuality or any other hot button issue, I need to enter into this reading with grace.  I believe a certain way and the author of the piece believes a certain way.  Instead of tearing down the person who wrote the article,  I need to ask questions of the text.  Questions about whether or not I agree sure, but also questions like what is the motivation of this article.  Where does this person come from when writing it?  What are the points that are made that are wise?  What can I learn from this piece that isn't just what are the points I need to tear apart, but what can I learn to be more understanding of this person's camp?  How can I learn to be more empathetic to other people's worldviews?

I believe that the only way to actually change someone's mind or point of view is through real authentic relationships.  One time I watched a video interview with an evangelical radio host and Rob Bell.  The conversation was around the issue of homosexuality.  The radio host kept to the evangelical party line about homosexuality and Rob Bell talked about changing his mind on the issue.  Do you know what it was that had changed Mr. Bell's mind?  It was not a well reasoned argument, nor a certain hermeneutical flavor of Biblical interpretation.  Rob Bell changed his mind because of real relationships with real people who are homosexual.  Relationships are better than arguments at changing our ways of thinking.

Therefore, as I think about ways to respond to articles that are contrary to my way of thinking, I am going to try to be empathetic and try to enter into a dialogue with the author (using the text) to better understand myself and this other person.  It does no good for me to dismiss their thinking because it is different, but it also does no good to hurl insults.  The best way to become a better person is to read this article with grace as the lens through which I come up with a response.  This is what I am working on.  How to read and have conversations with people from other camps to become a more understanding person and to understand what wisdom is there that I may dismiss otherwise because it is nestle in thoughts I don't agree with.  In other words, I am trying not to be offended and reactionary, but empathetic and questioning.

How do you go about doing this?  Do you only read things you agree with, or do you branch out?  How has reading outside your comfort zone helped you grow as a person?

#22 We are being created and creating.

So apparently something happened on the internet or TV or something, where Bill "The Science Guy" Nye took on somebody named Ham, Ken Ham, the creation museum guy, in a debate between creation and evolution.  I didn't watch it.  I did, though, watch my twitter feed, which was quite worth it.

From irReligion.org 

On twitter I follow a variety of progressive Christians with a smattering of what I will call new Evangelicals.  The first group is a diverse group of people who all claim the title Christian, but like to think for themselves and question dogma.  I tend to fall into this group.  This is not a monolithic group.  The second group, the new Evangelicals are people who have continued to use the Evangelical label but are open to rethinking the teachings in light of reason and interpretation of the Bible.  Also, not a monolithic group because there is no such thing.

Needless to say both groups made fun of this debate and also pulled out quotes that were good from the debate.  In my estimation from watching none of the debate and reading my very biased twitter feed, Bill Nye won this debate.  But here's the thing.  NO ONE HAS CHANGED THEIR MINDS BECAUSE OF THIS DEBATE.  Whatever camp you were in before, you are still in it.

Here is what I think.  Let's stop the black and white, false binary thinking when it comes to creation.  Let the Bible be what it is, which is an ancient collect of texts that has nothing to do with modern science and history.  And let science be what it is, which is observing and trying to understand how things work and how they go together using a very regimented set of systems and processes.  The Bible is not a science textbook.  Science doesn't really care what the Bible says.  People fall on a broad spectrum of thinking on how the Universe came to be.  Did God do it?  Was it all a Cosmic accident?  Are those two things mutually exclusive?  Were Adam and Eve actually aliens?  Will my list of questions ever stop?

From what I understand, Bill Nye even said that many Christians believe in evolution (I fall in the camp, btdoubs).  So the atheistic scientific materialist said that there seems to be more than one way to see these things, yet the supposedly loving Christian would just as soon limit true Christian expression to his way of thinking.
 
Here is my quick answer for where I fall on this broad spectrum of the question of creation/evolution.  I believe that God created something, then invited us to participate in that creation.  Thus giving incredible amount of freedom and power to the very thing that God created.  We as humans are co-creating with God, and everything else in creation is responding to the creative power of God making creation itself both created and creator.  Now, my brain hurts so I'm just going to quit while I'm confused.  You can draw your own implications from that convoluted statement.

Where do you fall on this spectrum?  Are you 6,000 year old person, or 4.5 billion year old person (I'm actually 32)?  Did God create in 7 days or is God still creating?  What are your thoughts?