So, what about you? Are you willing to compromise where some of your doctrines are concerned? Or do you believe in them so strongly that you will go to the grave believing in them and even condemn others to hell for not believing your doctrine? Now I'm not talking about the fundamentals (resurrection, Trinity, virgin birth, etc etc), I'm talking about those doctrines that are not part of the fundamentals but you believe in strongly. I know that nobody likes to admit when they are wrong (pride, that little devil
) but if we are to grow in Christ, part of that growth process will have to consist of admitting our doctrinal mistakes and adjusting our theology where it needs adjusting. I'm continually adjusting my theology. I don't know everything and admit that I'm capable of making mistakes. So, let's see how "open minded" you really are. Are you willing to admit where you're wrong and adjust your theology? Or are your beliefs set in stone and nobody will be able to change your mind?
None of my convictions are set in stone. I feel most certain that I have had 2 arms and 2 legs for the 25 years that I've been alive, but even that, in principle, is open to revision. Can someone usher in convincing evidence to the contrary? I've gone through a lot of theological, philosophical, scientific and political revision in the four or so years that I've been paying attention to those areas, and I'm sure I'll go through more. (In fact, I'd be concerned if I didn't. Would my educational progress be stagnating?)
I generally feel more comfortable, btw, speaking in terms of "degrees of feeling of conviction" as opposed to the in-my-opinion-misleadingly-categorical "belief vs. disbelief" that's virtually everywhere the norm. Some of my convictions have risen in strength of feeling over the years with respect to particular doctrines, others have waned. I lot of my opinions have become considerably nuanced, and often I don't like discussing them with other Christians (one of the reasons I don't post much) because they sometimes seem most accurately described by old, "disagreeable" terms. Yet the things that they've come to stand for in my own reflections have been as significant to a living Christianity as ever. If I were to say, for instance, that the term "amoralism" best describes my own view on Christians ethics (and therefore also on ethics
per se), many other Christians would quickly raise a condemning finger, however superficial the application of that term might otherwise be to what I think is going on under the surface of our behavior. (I still use terms like "good" and "evil" in meaningful conversations, for what it's worth, just not the way that I used to. And I wouldn't be quick to say "They don't exist"--depending on what you mean by them.)
If you'll forgive a small tangent, I'd mention that I've been feeling for the past couple of years like I've been pulled in two apparently (but not actually!) diametrically-opposed directions. On the one hand personal and familial experience has strengthened my convictions in the Trinity and the Incarnation. On the other hand rapier-like books written by extremely well-educated atheists and liberal Christians have smashed a lot of the things I thought (perhaps naively) were securely established. I no longer believe in inerrancy, I no longer believe in Creation without evolution, etc. But the interesting fact of the matter is that I don't feel conflicted or let down by these revisions. In fact, both the interest and excitement of my own Christianity have grown exponentially. It seems between the two falsely-dichotomous sides of 'Religion' and 'Science' lays a valley rich with intellectual opportunity, a place of profound mystery. I look forward to grappling with the complexities of a picture that's turned out to be bigger than what we once all thought.
All of these things I feel very strongly about. However, despite my strong belief in these things, I admit the possiblility that I might be wrong about them. With sufficient evidence being shown to me in an attitude of love, I can change my mind about any of those beliefs (even evolution).
If you're interested I'd recommend
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It's the best introduction to the subject, and it's flatly fascinating. I think anyone who didn't come to the book with a built-in distaste for the subject would be thoroughly caught up in its tales. The fact alone that human embryos grow (and reabsorb) two separate pairs of kidneys in sequence, namely fish-like kidneys and reptilian-like kidneys, before building a third, permanent pair fit for human life ought to give any reasonable skeptic pause [source: Coyne's book]. There doesn't seem too distinct an advantage, if I can be facetious, to "divinely design" metabolic waste into the embryological development plan of any species. Well, maybe if you didn't like that species very much.
[
Disclaimer: I do believe in "Divine Design," but I don't think the above feature of our embryology qualifies for it. I think that's rather a sterling example of what we'd expect from that often-disinterested Tinkerer we call natural selection.]