A Creed for the 21st Century Evangelical Academic

A Creed for the 21^st Century Evangelical Academic

A Satirical Exercise

We believe the immutable laws of nature, by which God most certainly produced the earth and all things visible. We also believe in select invisible things such as heaven and the soul which give meaning and comfort to our species as a matter of faith even though such ideas are not subject to the empirical sciences.

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before the big bang. He is God of immaterial God, Light of spiritual Light, True God of True mystical God, begotten, not evolved from lower life forms, being of one immaterial substance with the Father by whom the immutable laws of nature led inexorably and without further divine alteration to the formation all observable things; who for us humans, being the most highly evolved of the species, and for our spiritual enlightenment, came down from the unknowable realm traditionally known as heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the young and possibly virgin Mary, though we know not how the immutable laws of nature might account for this event. He was made homo-sapien, poetically analogous to the most highly evolved of the species, presumably without the deleterious effects of genetic mutation and presumably free of the junk DNA that other homo-sapiens inherited from lower life forms, though a naturalistic mechanism for this has not yet been proposed.

He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, who we admit was an historical Roman governor, though details of those events are subject to historical error. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again, or so the Church has long believed, though we know not what physical processes account for this event. All this is in accordance with the New Testament Scriptures, which are more recent and trustworthy regarding events once thought of as miracles, and are more historically valid than the Ancient Near Eastern narrative of Genesis, though still subject to historical error. According to the great redemptive narrative, He ascended into the non-material realm, and sits on the right hand of the Father to symbolize the beauty of the perichoretic relationship. And He shall come again with glory, though this may only be a story to illustrate the coming of a Righteous society based on Kingdom principles found in the words of Jesus and distinguished from the later theology of Paul. He will judge both the living and the dead, although the precise meaning of this phrase is open to interpretation. His kingdom of social justice, scientific enlightenment and equality shall have no end, vanquishing ignorance; superstition and fundamentalism.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, who mystically grants spiritual enlightenment in story form - the Lord and Giver of Life, who dwells in ontological relationship with the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father, though probably not from the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified in religious settings where mystery and experiential encounters with the transcendent are valued. He has spoken through the prophets, mostly in non-propositional narratives that are culturally conditioned in terms that are accommodated to the pre-modern and pre-scientific misconceptions of ancient cultures, but whose words nonetheless inspire deep spiritual meaning as the Spirit enlightens the contemporary local community of faith. 

And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church, so long as its doctrines do not contradict the most recent conclusions of the scientific academy, though we make exceptions for the Resurrection and possibly the Virgin Birth. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of real sins, such as materialism, white racism and scientific ignorance, but withhold our judgment regarding cultural and sexual taboos rooted in the ancient cultural paradigms that biased the human Biblical authors. And we embrace the narrative of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the just political order to come, subject to the constraints of reason and natural law.
Amen*.

* Specifics of the above statement are subject to revision as new scientific data becomes available or new theological paradigms become fashionable.

The Anti-Drilling Commission

Good points.

The Anti-Drilling Commission

Theistic Evolutionists - With Friends Like These...

William Dembski has a depressing article at Uncommon Descent. He opens with the following:

In 1993, well-known apologist William Lane Craig debated professional atheist Frank Zindler concerning the existence of the Christian God. The debate was published as a video by Zondervan in 1996 and is readily available at YouTube. The consensus among theists and atheists is that Craig won the debate. Still, Zindler presented there a challenge worth revisiting:

"The most devastating thing, though, that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity."

Glenn Beck vs Social Justice

Glen Beck has created quite a firestorm by linking "Social Justice" to socialism, Marxism, Communism and even Nazism last week. In the process, Beck suggested Christians should flee from Churches where "social justice" is preached. This caused Jim Wallis of Sojourners to blast Beck and start a campaign to get Christians to write to Beck proclaiming themselves to be "Social Justice" Christians.

It was, and is, quite a mess. I don’t watch Beck much, but I happened to see a Beck broadcast on Tuesday March 23 where he took on Wallis. One particular quote included in the broadcast was a radio interview where Jim Wallis was asked if he was speaking of "wealth redistribution". Wallis’ response included the words "Absolutely...that's what the gospel is all about". Beck had found, it seemed, the smoking gun and went on to link Wallis to forced government redistribution of wealth. As it turns out, Wallis' comment in context was not necessarily about government seizure of property to pass it along to the poor, but was about voluntary involvement of the rich with the poor, voluntarism Beck admitted in his program was an acceptable understanding of the gospel and a good thing. Which is not to defend Wallis, only to acknowledge Beck's quote of Wallis was not what it seemed.

Why I am a Conservative - Part 1

I keep reading blogs and net entries and titles of books (that I am not interested in reading) that insinuate or outright claim that the link between evangelicals and the Republican party over the years is something of an evil alliance. We are told this alliance was concocted by cynical politicians who took advantage of naïve church folks or worse, was a cynical attempt by religious leaders to seize power through the Republican party apparatus and establish a theocracy.

While there are always opportunists in every movement, I really don’t think that is anything like the truth. To that end, I have decided to jot down a few thoughts on what I think the Christian Conservative movement is really about.

First on the list – limited government.

Jill Stanek

Jill Stanek posted this "debate" between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.

While Shoveling the Driveway

Just a thought. This last weekend we were warned that a major winter storm was about to hit our area. This took me as a surprise because I had checked an online weather site less than 48 hours prior and nothing of the sort was predicted. My wife informed me of the forecast on Sunday - that it was supposed to start snowing Sunday evening and continue through the following day, leaving 10 or more inches of snow. I watched and waited until I retired Sunday night, wondering if schools would close and how long it would take to clear my driveway.

I woke up to find a modest 2-3 inches of snow - a minor inconvenience, not quite what was predicted.

I've seen this pattern repeated over and over, as has anyone who has tried to plan a spring camping trip. Listen to the weather reports on one TV station and you may or may not hear the same thing on another. Online weather services often show different forecasts. If you are looking at the next day forecast, the accuracy is usually pretty good. If the forecast is for three days out, not so much. If the forecast is for five days out - well, you'd better check back in a couple of days.

Theistic Inconsistency

I have been following the review of Steven Meyer's new book "Signature in the Cell" at Jesus Creed and, while the conversation there has been frustrating and at times heated, I have come to one clear conclusion. I find that it is impossible to see intellectual consistency in belief in orthodox Christianity while holding to the standard secularist definition of "science".

If that sounds strong or harsh, hear me out.

Secular science as defined by Judge Overton, insists on a uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. That is, since science can only examine natural phenomena, one can leap to the conclusion that every detectable effect found in nature must therefore have a detectable natural cause, explainable by natural law alone. Any appeal to something other than nature, it is asserted, violates the definition of science (and is sufficient cause for ridicule, insult and questioning the worthiness of one’s PhD.) Theistic Evolutionists like Meyers’ reviewer, do not assert there is nothing beyond nature, only that science, by definition, must never appeal to something beyond nature.

But for anyone who accepts the New Testament as a description of real events, this is a huge problem. If one is an orthodox Christian, one must affirm the creedal statements regarding the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. Those are the rock bottom central assertions of Biblical Christianity, without which there is nothing left of historic Christianity. And those are events which are asserted as verifiable within the natural world, seen by eyewitnesses, but which by definition have no natural cause.

William Lane Craig on Romans 9

I've been recently confronted with a number of debates about Sovereignty and free will. Willaim Lane Craig has this to say about Romans 9 and the corporate view of election, which essentially says election is not about God individually predestining some to salvation and others to condemnation, but God choosing a "people", those who are "in Christ". Craig writes:

"[L]et's talk about Paul's doctrine of election in Romans. I want to share with you a perspective on Paul's teaching that I think you'll find very illuminating and encouraging. Typically, as a result of Reformed theology, we have a tendency to read Paul as narrowing down the scope of God's election to the very select few, and those not so chosen can't complain if God in His sovereignty overlooks them. I think this is a fundamental misreading of the chapter which makes very little sense in the context of Paul's letter.

Misquoting Augustine Part 5

Having looked at Augustine’s view of Genesis from his “City of God”, it is clear Theistic Evolution advocates should not use Augustine’s “Literal Meaning of Genesis” to make that case because Augustine was fairly thoroughly committed to positions that are in direct opposition to their central premise.

I have my reasons for trusting the “plain meaning” of scripture where scripture seems to be plain, though I acknowledge not all in scripture is equally plain. There are many quotations from Augustine, Athanasius and others in the early church as well as the reformers, well prior to the “modernist/fundamentalist” controversy of the early 20^th century, that assert long held belief in the trustworthiness of scripture.

Having said that, I do not completely accept the Young Earth view in many details because I am not sure the text is entirely clear as to its meaning. I do not think the age of the earth is a critical issue and I think the length of a day in the creation week seems a fairly secondary concern, hardly central to the faith.

I am, however, sympathetic to the main concerns of YEC. Those concerns are

1) that the definition of science must not be limited to naturalism and

2) Christianity without the historical fall of Adam and Eve is more like a placebo than a medicine. I settle my own mind by focusing on a couple of key ideas.