I, too, live in the Bible Belt buckle and so appreciate your perspective. I don’t know any Christians within hundreds of miles who accept evolutionary theory. Sad, but changing, I think.

Assuming your target audience is those struggling with integrating faith and science, I’d agree with others on avoiding the “Dick joke.” Though I also find the example apropos in several ways—that we have to examine the cultural context (and it’s difficult to tell whether it was or wasn’t intended as a double-entendre even then)—I think it will offend some of the ones who most need to hear the message of the series, though I haven’t been able to think of another example that makes the point as well. The idea that accepting accomodation is not the same as rejecting the inspiration of scripture is already quite a stretch for the average evangelical, I think.

Somewhat in the same vein, in earlier installments, I wondered if using the term “Christian Folk Science” in the titles of installments might not have a negative effect on reaching the target audience. Even though I think the term needs to be used within the body of the material, I am concerned that some of the ones who most need to grasp the concept may scan the titles and reject the series as “anti-Christian, pro-evolution propaganda” that they have been programmed to avoid.

BTW, also from the earlier lesson (since I only recently encountered the series): is it really an-tip-o-dees instead of anti-podes? I confess having had to look the word up but I seem to recall (in the singular, at least) the online dictionary giving the latter pronunciation rather than the former. Hardly the (flat) earth-shattering issue regardless, but since I do much of my “reading” listening to a text reader I had already found that my text-to-speech program pronounced it as the former if it was capitalized and as the latter if not.

Tom, you said, “How do you reconcile accommodation with the more parsimonious explanation that they were surrounded by these ideas and rolled them into their own culture, creating God in their image?”

If I were speaking purely as an objective scholar of history, I would indeed go with the more parsimonious explanation. The Hebrews were obviously late-commers to the ancient Near-Eastern religious scene and borrowed most of their ideas from the surrounding cultures. However, when approaching these things from the perspective of Christian faith — from the perspective of one God, progressively revealing Himself in time — I have the liberty to see beyond the plain facts of historicity. Faith doesn’t mean I get to ignore the obvious (it’s only the evidence of things unseen), but it does mean I get to speculate beyond the facts in a way that provides meaning and worldview context for living — just as a cosmologist would do when pondering the instant “before” the big bang. Was it creation? Was it a multiverse? Fine tuning? There are no facts one way or the other, so people cling to the explanation that fits their view of the world.

If indeed there is a God, and He allows us to know something of himself, then accommmodation seems to me to be the most rational means by which the unknowable can be made known (the extra “m” makes up for the one I missed earlier).

Write back when you finish, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the rest of it. Are you coming to D.C. again any time soon?

I would add the following two words to the sentence: Quite simply, if the report were not situated in time and space, specifically right now and right here, we would have little reason to accept its authority AND RELEVANCE.

…Which gets to the issues of accommodation (and note that “ACCOMMODATION” has two “M”s), which I’m not sure you are going to cover in your series, but I raise nevertheless. I’m on page 270 of Lamoureux’s book. He says, “Today, believers must read beyond the accommodation made by the Holy Spirit in order to embrace the inerrant and infallible Messages of Faith.
“Human history testifies to the reality that Gen 1-11 is utterly true. The power of the eternal Truths in these chapters is proven by the countless lives that have been impacted and changed in every generation….”

I’m still proceeding through the book, but so far, I don’t really understand what the messages really were. On page 239, Lamoureux enumerates some Messages of Faith: “The Creatorship and Lordship of the Hebrew God over a very good world, the unity of all men and women through bearing the Image of God, the privilege of having relationships with other people and in particular with the Creator, the reality of human sin and divine judgment of sinners, and the unicity of the Hebrew community as the Lord’s chosen people.” These are fairly generic statements, and rather egocentric — of course a Hebrew is going to say his God is over other people’s gods, and they are a special people! If it is recognized that all of these ANE origins stories understood a lost idyllic age and the result of displeasing their gods was pain and death, what was it really about these goat herders and the message given to them that was so unique and special? What is relevant today? How do you reconcile accommodation with the more parsimonious explanation that they were surrounded by these ideas and rolled them into their own culture, creating God in their image? (You don’t have to answer me here and now, especially if you’re on vacation!)

Regarding the political pin. I like it a lot, but I don’t think most of your audience will. I have to believe that the double entendre was part of the original design. Reminds me of the 2004 bumper sticker: Lick Bush in ‘04.

An easy analogy to add instead would be that in a third context, someone might think of “inside loop” and “outside loop” as stitches in knitting, in addition to traffic reports or yo-yo. Or pick a few phrases from popular culture in the 50’s, 60’s or 70’s that have already gone out of popular use, to make the point (as you did) that “If the meaning of a phrase can change that much in one or two generations….” Maybe someone here can suggest a few examples.

I wouldn’t agree (12th paragraph after the picture) that *only* liberals “will tend to re-interpret scripture to make it agree with science”, since conservatives do the same thing. But did you intend to say this on purpose, since in the next paragraph you infer that modern YECs are liberals (according to geocentrists)?

A tip-top script overall. Such an important piece of the puzzle.

75% of me says “you should drop it.” The other 25% of me says, “but it’s such a great example!” It’s like Homer Simpson’s internal debate as a film judge: “Barney’s movie has heart, but ‘Football in the Groin’ has football in the groin!”

Ultimately I think I come down on the side of responsibility (probably because I have three kids). I say replace it with something else. A certain measure of risque-ness is acceptable, but I’m pretty sure that the double meaning of “Dick” would just be too much for the majority of parents.

So I suggest a BTF Blog contest. Commenters should submit examples that they think make your point well and would be more acceptable to the median parent with a child in a private Christian school.

AMW, get your mind out of the gutter! Actually, I had that same thought — which is why I wanted to post the script first. Part of me says, “that’s just my style so get over it” and part of my says “I shouldn’t make this any more difficult for evangelicals than it already is”.

So let’s discuss it. I like the example, because its based on a true story. But is there a better way to present it? Or does it need to go?