Nicky Gumbel on Evolution .

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Have a link.

Quote and original under the cut.
http://lapsedpagan.blogspot.com/2008/03/has-nicky-gumbel-proved-anything-part-1.html


NG:
Others say “look, Genesis I, this is not intended to be a scientific account; it is a theological account” It’s a poetic form, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true; all interpretation starts with saying “What is this literary genre.” For example the parables of Jesus, they’re not historically true, but that doesn’t mean to say they’re not true. Poetic language can be true without being literally true. When the psalmist wrote “The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved” he is using a poetic image. But Galileo’s opponents took it literally and argued that the earth was stationary, and that the theories of the earth orbiting the sun must therefore be wrong. And these Christians feel that in the same way the early chapters of Genesis should not be taken literally, that there is strong evidence for evolutionary theory, and this is now accepted by the vast majority of scientists who argue that the evidence is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis. And those who take this view argue that what matters is that there’s a God who created and sustains the laws of physics and nature, which evolved over time, culminating in human life. It’s clear that whichever that one takes, that there’s no necessary conflict between science and scripture. In the light of the certainty and different opinions of genuine Christians, personally I think it’s wise not to be too dogmatic about this issue; certainly if you’re like me, and neither a scientist nor a theologian. The main point of Genesis I is not to answer the questions “How?” and “When?”, those are scientific questions; but to answer the questions “Why?” and “Who?”, those are the theological questions. The bible is not primarily a scientific book it’s a theological one. It offers a personal explanation more than a scientific one. The scientific explanation does not prove or disprove the personal one, rather it is complementary.

the blogger who quotes him goes on to say-

"Here Nicky, who is apparently not a theologian despite holding an honours degree in theology from Wycliffe Hall - Oxford and making his living interpreting the Bible, tells us that "poetic language can be true without being literally true". What does that mean? "

I take it that Nicky is saying that people who are 'like him', and are not scientists and theologians, but he could mean 'people who are 'like him', but also lack a degree in theology that he apparently has 'should not be too dogmatic'. Ok, I won't be. On gay marraige or evolution, thank you :).

But yeah - interesting quote, huh ?

Now, if Mr Gumbel, who 'invented' the Alpha Course, is saying that I should not be too dogmatic about Evolution or Creationism, why should I be dogmatic about gay people and regarding homosexuality as a sin?

Can it be that this guy has knocked the bottom out of Fundamentalism, in admitting that Genesis can be, and maybe should be, regarded as a metaphor? Is this going to change anyone's minds in the USA or elsewhere?

Over to you...

Comments

[midsummerskies.livejournal.com]

you know that the creation story is regarded as a metaphor/myth by lots of theologians, right?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I don't think mintogrubb has the slightest clue what he is talking about. Heck, Augustine understood the Genesis narrative as allegorical -- more than a thousand years before Darwin showed up.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html)

So the American Christians who fight to have Creationism/Intelligent Design taught in school are fighting for an allegory to be taught?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do - and that includes St Augustine of Hippo, BTW.

The trouble is , there are many Christians on both sides of the Atlantic who defend the literal truth of Genesis who could not find Hippo on a map and reckon that St Augustine was not a Christian but a Catholic...

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Augustine


"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Can it be that this guy has knocked the bottom out of Fundamentalism

You realize that this is not something new Nicky Gumbel came up with?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I realize thhat St Augustine of Hippo said something about not taking Genesis literally way back in the 4th or 5th Century AD.

However, Protestants like R. T. Kendall have invited speakers who defended the literalness of Genesis to speak at Westminster chapel in London . Ii know because i was there.

Duane Gish was also invited by R.T. to speak there and II was told by R.T's deacons not to give the honored guest speaker such a hard time.

You have said before now, in a comment on a previous post "You are completely ignorant".

Ok, like Socrates, I am aware of my own ignorance - there I things I do not know and there are things that are 'unknown unknowns' in my book.

I am a self taught amateur on many subjects. But this does not mean I am totally ignorant.

No, this isn't new to me, but it was a shock to many people at Oak Hall when I picked up the book this quote came from and showed it to the rest of the group.

People familiar with Nicky Gumbel's work did not expect him to say something like this.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I think the worlds of politics, academics and religion would all be much sounder if we stopped worrying about knocking "the bottom out of" someone else's ideas and worried more about shoring up the bottom of our own.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

But how will we win the war that Minto has decided we need on people that Minto disagrees with??????

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I don't. It's useful to know that something doesn't work. Besides, the whole thing about scientific proof is that it doesn't take much to disprove a theory.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I feel like I've lost a few brain cells reading that Gumbel paragraph. It's complete nonsense. Science and religion are incompatible. While both may start with some number of preconceived notions, the genius in the contribution of science is the idea that any knowledge claim you make is conditional, subject to validation by fact. This is wholly inconsistent with the idea of revealed knowledge as given by god (scripture).

It’s clear that whichever that one takes, that there’s no necessary conflict between science and scripture ... The scientific explanation does not prove or disprove the personal one, rather it is complementary.

Start with the premise that the bible is a special book. When science shows that this special book is factually incorrect, reinterpret the book so that it still remains special. We cannot argue that the bible is superior to science but if we squint and look at it from a distance there my still be enough in there to salvage it. Well here's another idea. Take away the special significance of the bible and put it on the shelf as just another book within the entire body of knowledge. It may still have something to contribute, just as a story from the Roman and Greek pantheon of gods, or a Shakespeare play does.

In a way the fundamentalists have it right. If you are going to believe that the bible is special in that it contains revealed knowledge, then it trumps science. Once you open it to wide interpretation all bets are off as everyone interprets it to justify their personal worldview. Given enough time it will be so diluted it will be interpreted into meaninglessness. IMO this has already happened and it started with the Protestant Reformation.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I assume you've seen those debates with Christopher Hitchens and the fundamentalist pastor, who makes the same point you did here: he's not going to mamby-pampy the issues of factual errors in the Bible by saying it's all a metaphor some greater religious truth, he takes all of it literally or none of it.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Except fundamentalists are by definition heterodox.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, that's silly. There wasn't even such a thing as a "fundamentalist" for the first 1700 years of the Church.

And do you know who Georges Lemaître is? Or Gregor Mendel?

When science shows that this special book is factually incorrect, reinterpret the book so that it still remains special.

Except the Church Fathers read Genesis allegorically for centuries before Darwin showed up. But, sure, be a fundamentalist -- and don't let facts get in the way of your dogmas.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

So what makes it all that special then? How can you use it as anything authoritative?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

And do you know who Georges Lemaître is? Or Gregor Mendel?

And don't forget Francis Collins.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

A great theory, if it were true. Christianity tended to allegoricize the Bible for the earliest period of it up to the Enlightenment. The Medieval scholars as a rule viewed Genesis only in an allegorical fashion, and Biblical literalism has at no point ever been a serious issue in Eastern Christianity. Fundamentalism was the result of applying higher criticism to the Bible and a backlash against it. While it's got some surprisingly strong influence in the USA, it is not that typical as the whole of Christianity, and the largest denominations, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy define Biblical literalism as a heresy.

For that matter those Jews who treat the Bible in that fashion, the Karaites, are also seen as heretics by the Rabbis. And even Islam has tended more often than not to accept allegory WRT the Quran.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I call plagiarism on Mr. Gumbel, Augustine and Origen did this first.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Please don't bring facts into the discussion.

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

"why should I be dogmatic about gay people and regarding homosexuality as a sin?"

Because sin is a theological idea... precisely the sort of thing about which a religion can have a dogma.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Sin is actually a metaphysical idea, like "wrong."

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

While I agree that the ideas presented in this post are nothing new, I'm glad you presented them for discussion again. :) I definitely agree with the premise that religion and science can be complimentary. I hate it when people try to polarize them and attack one or the other.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

How do you think they are complementary?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Prove your thesis!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

For that matter science and magical thinking are quite complimentary. The founders of the Scientific Revolution were involved in practices ranging from Hermeticism to astrology, and all those practices, inseparable from their works, are dismissed not merely as pseudoscience but irrelevant.