Two academics discuss their faith and reason in the New York Times:
we find it hard to recognize our religious tradition in the mainstream evangelical conversation.
Evangelicalism at its best seeks a biblically grounded expression of Christianity that is intellectually engaged, humble and forward-looking. In contrast, fundamentalism is literalistic, overconfident and reactionary.
I am of two minds of their mind.
If you only read the red lines, yes, you could say that Christianity is relatively humble. That starts to change pretty fast, pretty much with Peter. But if you’re an evangelical, maybe you’re not fully thrilled with the first pope.
But the people who find it hard to fit their ideas and ethos into their faith (and especially an institution) only do so by what I think of as religious lego: take what you like, toss away the rest. Build your own religion. (Canadian Catholics, among whom I was raised, take this to an art form.)
So I have to say that “intellectually engaged, humble and forward-looking” sounds rather like wishful thinking.
Thoughts from readers? The usual ground rules for my comments section apply: civil discourse only. Or else my blog lightning might just hit your comment.