The kerfuffle about Gungor and the drift from orthodoxy per his comments regarding the historicity of early Genesis is patently ridiculous and only exposes the weak and historically recent limb that modern fundamentalism sits on. The debate about the historicity of Adam is an open one currently among evangelical scientists and scholars who are wrestling honestly BOTH with the science AND what the implications theologically of embracing one position vs another would be - meaning that if we are to take this portion of the debate EXCLUSIVELY from the evangelical angle, Gungors views fall within the bounds. As to Noahs ark, the early church fathers (those who were closest to Jesus and the apostles) interpreted much of early Genesis as allegory and insisted that to read such texts literally rather than, we might say, literarily or spiritually was to do damage to their intent. That is to say, those who CRADLED the orthodoxy we have come to know and love (and indeed depend on for our theological existence) largely tended to agree w/ Gungor. NONE of this is to say that Adam and Eve WERENT totally historical or that a global flood didnt happen. They might have been. Just that to declare one beyond the pale of orthodoxy for these beliefs is at the very least historically ignorant. At worst, it is violent and destructive. There are plenty of things that DO place one beyond the pale. These are not those things. I say all of this because these people are my friends AND because the clarification is important. Happy Thursday night, friends :)
Posted on: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 02:02:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015