Back To The Center

The Fall of Man and the Rise of Science

2012-01-18T07:01:00.010-06:00

Two Interesting reviews of a book by an Oxford guy. here and here.

The book is “The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science” and the Oxford guy is Peter Harrison.

I'm intrigued by the book, and will likely buy it, but I have to say I find this thesis vaguely familiar. Francis Schaeffer outlined a similar viewpoint decades ago.

There are a few distinctly Christian presuppositions about the universe that many argue were necessary for science as we know it to come into existence. The first is often cited and understood by Christians in the ID and Creationist camps. It is simply the idea that the universe is orderly and that our brains can apprehend that order.

There's a lot in that statement. Christian scientists in the 17th century clearly believed the world was intelligible - but they believed the world was intelligible because they were theists who accepted in some sense the biblical creation account and the first line of the Nicene Creed. The belief in a Creator was the key idea that implied orderliness in creation, and that such order could be studied and understood because we were made for this reality. Without a creator, there is no reason for order.

The thesis of this book adds a whole new layer going in a deeper direction, the idea that belief in the fall of man was also a primary factor that drove the 17th century pioneers of science forward.

A Christian worldview would insist that human faculties for understanding are finite. But as Schaeffer argued and Harrison apparently documents, in the minds of 17^th century Christian pioneers in science, the fall of man changed not only the moral character of man, but the intellectual character of man. This had tremendous implications for the quest for knowledge. One of Schaeffer’s most central and controversial ideas was that Thomas Aquinas had an incomplete view of the fall in which the will of man was fallen but the intellect was essentially intact. So Aquinas thought that “right reason” could arrive at truth about the cosmos, man, philosophy and theology apart from the influence of divine grace and revelation. Aquinas’ notion of “right reason” allowed reason to operate independently of revelation according to Schaeffer and this laid the foundation for the autonomous rationalism and naturalism that would eventually drive a wedge between science from faith.

The Reformers, following Augustine’s understanding of original sin, rejected Aquinas’ optimistic view of human reason. Fallen human beings, in the Augustinian/Reformation view, are prone to error in a way that would not have been the case had man not fallen. In fact, men are intellectually in rebellion against truth, consistent with Paul’s statements in Romans 1 and Peter’s statements in 2 Peter 3.

The apparent thesis of Harrsion’s book is that 17^th century predecessors to modern science felt that these human weaknesses – being finite, capable of error due to the fall and the effects of the fall on the mind and even on the cosmos - could be counteracted, but only with a healthy dose of skepticism about human thought and only by the Grace of God. True knowledge, even about things not directly revealed in scripture, could be restored if rigorous methods, tests and controlled experimentation were applied to counteract the effects of the fall on the intellect. But such knowledge would always be incomplete and imperfect.

So the thesis is that it was the very potential for and expectation of human error that gave birth to careful scientific research and reasoning. Without a belief in the fallen nature of man, modern scientific methods of inquiry might not have come into being.

Reviews of the book note the high level of scholarship and extensive documentation. Given that this is a serious work from someone with credentials from Oxford, it should be hard to ignore. This is a thesis that runs completely counter to the notion that the influence of faith and Christian doctrine are anti-science. It asserts instead that science owes its existence to the very doctrine that is today most in question in theistic evolution circles – the fall of man. Harrison’s book could bolster the protest of many who find the current definition of science as a purely naturalistic enterprise to be false and unfair. And it could undermine the unwarranted confidence in the scientific consensus that many seem to hold as an article of faith.

From my own perspective, if this thesis has validity, then there is a cogent answer to the oft-repeated argument of theistic evolutionists who insist that the current scientific consensus must trump all alternative viewpoints from either ID or various Creationist camps. If the human intellect is fallen, then some knowledge about the distant past may simply be out of reach of human reason, and more importantly, the current naturalistic consensus in the Christian academy can be challenged on the basis that the human intellect is not only prone to error but also in rebellion. Though common grace can enlighten even the unbeliever, the effects of the fall taint human thought as well as desire and action. What is taken as empirical knowledge may be quite prone to error and self-deception apart from the corrective presuppositions of a supernatural universe, a fallen race and the need for grace and revelation. For the Christian who stands in the stream of the Reformation, revelation is a necessary starting point to true knowledge. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”.

And given the intense interest in how Darwinian views seem difficult to reconcile with the historicity of Adam and the fall, it should be an interesting point of discussion to suggest that without the fall, there would possibly have been no science to begin with.

Perhaps the words of Peter can perhaps be heard once again, “...they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”

Gilberson's World

2011-10-12T19:59:00.003-05:00

Karl Gilberson, formerly of Biologos and author of “Saving Darwin” has penned a little testimonial at Frum Forum to plug his new book “The Anointed.”

Michelle Bachman has stated that Francis Schaeffer had an influence on her in days gone by. Karl Gilberson recalls his own similar background and evangelical heritage and proceeds to paint Bachman and pretty much all conservative evangelicals as uneducated dunces. He directly names Schaeffer, James Dobson, Ken Ham and David Barton as “anointed” ones whose status in the evangelical community gives cover to anti-intellectual and dishonest dissemination of an alternate and defective standard of truth.

He takes a mild swipe at Schaeffer’s goatee and knickers. Of Dobson he sarcastically notes that he “had a PhD in child development and thus knew what he was talking about.” Of Ham who does not have a PhD, he snarks “Very few evangelicals grow up without hearing some trusted authority—perhaps even with a PhD—tell them that the age of the earth is an “open question.” It all boils down to the charge that conservative Evangelicals are trapped in an alternative “parallel culture” with its own standards of truth, where the statements of “anointed” leaders - whose only claim to authority is that the unsuspecting sheep think they have a special gift - trump rational analysis of truth claims.

He is clear that instead evangelicals should listen to real scholars like Francis Collins and Mark Noll, presumably because they have PhDs and know what they are talking about. (I mean no disrespect to Noll or Collins, just pointing out the contradiction in Gilberson’s position.)

I found the tone sanctimonious, condescending and elitist. But that was not the primary concern. I felt he misrepresented not only Schaeffer, but Dobson, Barton and even Ken Ham in his dismissive broadside, by not merely insinuating but flat out stating that the whole of conservative Christian intellectual thought was bereft of a rational approach to evaluating truth claims. I also believe his own reliance on academic consensus as the final arbiter of truth is problematic, for it does not account for the influence of human nature on the intellect and puts too much of the burden of determining what is true on ivory tower structures prone to influence by politics, ambition, greed and other human failings. Truth stands alone – it is not the property of any club.

With regard to Schaeffer, the charge of anti-intellectualism simply does not fit. Yes, Schaeffer was criticized for being a generalist and not an academic, but it was never his purpose to give a full picture of the entire body of work of Kierkegaard or Aquinas but rather to help laymen to understand a general ebb and flow of thought over time. Schaeffer’s influence was directly tied to the fact that he was engaged with the culture at large and with intellectual movements – he was the least anti-intellectual evangelical of his era. Gilberson is about as far off the mark here as one can get, and I suspect he knows it.

David Barton is held to be a presumptuous “amateur historian”, for audaciously quoting from original source documents to demonstrate that the founding fathers were not absolutist separationists in the sense that Barry Lynn and the ACLU would have us believe. Does one need a PhD to read a letter of Matthew Henry or the Federalist Papers? Barton has openly acknowledged that a handful of those quotes have come into question as to their authenticity and has stopped using them and has encouraged others to stop using them. But it is not like “real” historians have never concluded something to be authentic only to find additional information casts a doubt on the earlier conclusion. It is not like Barton’s entire case is dependent on a single quotation.

Nor does having the right credentials from the right universities protect one’s understanding of history (or science) from bad logic. Gilberson’s area is science. Does Gilberson hold his colleagues to the same standards as he holds Barton? For example, science texts still publish Haeckel's embryos as evidence for a broad, sometimes vaguely defined concept of evolution, even though it has been known for decades that Haekel’s drawings were flawed and misleading. Textbooks still cite the Miller-Urey experiment in relation to the advent of life on the planet even though we know now that Miller-Urey assumed an atmosphere that was not representative of what scientists now believe the original atmosphere on earth was. See here.

These are examples where, unlike Barton who has refrained from using evidences no longer clear in their authenticity, the entire community of academic science continues to use discredited evidences decades after those evidences have been exposed as faulty. Does this represent anti-intellectualism? An alternative standard of truth? A PhD that is of lesser value than someone else’s?

The point being, having the “right” PhD, from the right Universities with the blessing of the right establishment authorities does not insulate from fa;se conclusions about history or science and a lack of letters after one’s name does not put truth out of reach. The standard of determining what is true and what is not true can never be merely the consensus of what a particular cadre of institutional gatekeepers decide based on what is currently known.

Ken Ham is another target. His egregious crime is questioning the scientific consensus on origins and in particular believing in a recent creation. I don’t share the opinion of most young-earth creationists on the length of the Genesis day for minor exegetical reasons that have little to do with science, but I completely understand and support their concerns about what a denial of the historicity of Adam and the Fall mean for the all important “narrative” of Christianity. Kan Ham does not have a PhD. Many young earth creationists do, as do a fair number of ID proponents. It is quite clear that having or not having a PhD is really not what matters to Gilberson – his disdain for those who question the current scientific consensus would remain even if Ken Ham had 12 PhDs from Harvard.

What is most distressing to me about Gilberson’s vitriol against Ken Ham and the general creationist movement is how callous his disdain for creationism is toward the immense philosophical and theological concerns creationists have for matters that go far beyond the physical science of origins. At stake are huge questions such as “who are we as humans?”, “why does life exist?”, “how did evil originate and was God responsible?”, “what is the meaning of death?”. Insisting that “Science has settled it” with regard to genetic evidence for common descent does not even begin to grapple with the massive implications that confident conclusion suggests.

Granted, it is logically possible that naturalistic evolution is true. But if true, that conclusion raises philosophical and theological questions that physical science completely fails to answer. A purely materialist universe is one where peronality has no purpose. Naturalistic Christianity has no cogent answer to the question why an omnipotent miracle working God would limit his creative acts to natural cause and effect. A Christianity wedded to the narrative of naturalistic evolution exists with one foot on a naturalistic, mechanistic cliff and plants the other on a nebulous cloud of spirituality disconnected from real-world events.

Is it not possible that other considerations besides scientific data might legitimately have a bearing on how one approaches the question of what actually occurred in the genesis of life on earth? Does a set of philosophical assumptions and scientific theories that fails to answer the most basic questions of meaning, purpose, good and evil, not warrant scrutiny from outside of the narrow silo of physical science? If evolution fails to answer basic human questions, is it not fair to consider it may not be true for that very reason? But like most in the Theistic evolution camp, Gilberson bulldozes past the implications of the origin and development of life by random mutation and natural selection and holds those who do not follow in blind allegiance to naturalistic science in contempt. For Gilberson, the final arbiter of truth is natural science, and there lies the problem.

Creationists, whether they have been right or wrong about the interpretation of Genesis 1, have been correct in their criticism of what Schaeffer called “modern-modern” science. Schaeffer distinguished between two views. Early modern scientists who were often Christians held the belief in a uniformity of natural causes that flows naturally from a belief in a creator who formulated the laws of nature and was master over it. But later secularized approaches to science held to a uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. This meant there could be no allowance for divine intervention. In my experience, Theistic Evolutionists, like their non-theist counterparts in the scientific academy, assume and vehemently insist on the closed system. They claim it is a necessary assumption for science to function lest every unanswered question be automatically attributed to divine forces or blind superstition.

But the central questions every creationist asks are very simple and direct: “On what basis does one assume that every natural effect must have a natural cause and only a natural cause?” And to the Theistic Evolutionist, the creationist asks, “How does one who claims to believe in the miraculous resurrection of Christ so easily dismiss as “unscientific” every possibility of miraculous activity in the creation account?”

Instead of thoughtful engagement with the substance of these deep and vital questions, we get the derisive dismissal of anyone who disagrees with the secular consensus as “misguided”, “anti-intellectual”, “lacking credentials” or motivated by some irrational fear. But if a science that merely asserts that origins are bound to natural causes alone has no satisfactory answer to the epistemological question of how we can know that every event in the known universe over eons of time has a purely natural cause, how can one have the audacity to suggest those who ask the question are lacking in intellectual capacity?

Which leads to Gilberson’s attack on James Dobson, who though he holds a PhD from no less a place than the University of Southern California is dismissed with the sneer “who had a PhD in child development and thus knew what he was talking about.” Quite clearly, and again, the issue is not a lack of education or credentials in Dobson’s case. What is Dobson’s crime? Apparently his defense of the traditional family and the corresponding belief that a homosexual can change. Not sure if Gilberson’s apparent sympathy with the current “consensus” that being gay is irreversible is one of the reasons he is no longer at Biologos.

But what is condescending about his slam of Dobson is the insinuation that opposition to the normalization of homosexuality is built on nothing other than an alleged misreading of the biblical texts. Does Gilberson really mean to say that Dobson’s (or anyone else’s) entire case for one-man-one-woman marriage is based only on his anointed status as a conservative reader of pertinent biblical texts? That there is no data, no evidence, no real world reasons for concluding that gay sex might be less than ideal?

As I noted here, there is a long list of document, statistics, studies from a variety of reputable sources that show real issues related to physical and mental health that are associated with the “alternate lifestyle” in question. A higher rate of substance abuse, a higher rate of suicide, a higher rate of infection and death from a variety of STDs, a higher rate of domestic violence. There is a curious lack of clear evidence for any genetic cause for homosexuality and much evidence of other familial and social causes, suggesting that gayness is a learned behavior that can be unlearned. Is it not possible that Dobson’s views of homosexuality are based in part on actual data and include a concern for the well-being of the homosexual? That bucking the consensus might actually be based on intelligent inquiry and a refusal to accept assumptions or conclusions blindly?

Folks who support ID, folks who support various forms of creationism or ID, folks who support the nuclear family, folks who oppose global warming alarmism are not people who are blind to evidence or have a defective understanding of truth. Rather they are folks who question the unproven and often unspoken assumptions of the academy, and who can then, free from the constraints of those assumptions, see that there is genuine contrary evidence that makes alternate view compelling.

The point is, the premise Gilberson offers, that conservative evangelicals have a different set of standards for truth, is actually an indictment of the academy – the same academy Gilberson wants to establish as the official magisterium to set the secular doctrines that we all must adhere to. Instead of truth being an objective reality that all rational human beings can pursue and apprehend, Gilberson’s form of truth is a set of accepted conclusions about reality only attainable to those who have the right education, the right level of expertise, the right PhDs from the right institutions. Everyone else in Gilberson’s world, including those with PhDs from the wrong institutions, should sit down, shut up and swear allegiance to the Academic’s Creed. And those who do not are worthy of ridicule and contempt.

PCUSA - Dancing in the Graveyard

2011-05-11T19:29:00.000-05:00

Today the PCUSA became the latest mainline denomination to allow ordination of gay clergy. This just a matter of hours after Evangelical left leader Jim Wallis took a thrashing from his erstwhile comrades in arms for rejecting an ad that asked churches to be more affirming of gays. An example of the reaction can be found here.

Tony Jones thinks opposition to gay marriage is just an excuse for evangelicals to divisively attack those they disagree with, comparing studied opposition to gay marriage with the slaughter of 42,000 in the Old Testament over a mispronunciation of a word. Tony is nothing if not subtle in his utter dismissiveness toward anyone who agrees with 3400 years of Western moral wisdom. But alas, we have much virtual ink spilled by Christians over the topic.

One thing in particular strikes me. Most of the debate, pro and con, over gay unions and gay activity and gay orientation is focused on legal arguments, moral arguments, biblical interpretation arguments. Little is devoted to the health issues.

There was a long footnoted fact sheet at Free Republic published back in 2003 that ought to at least enter into the conversation. I would suggest anyone who reads this summary go and check out the footnotes in the article. Included in the commentary and notes are tidbits like these:

Men with same sex partners are more than six times more likely to attempt suicide. Gay males have three to four times the incidence of depression and other emotional disorders. There is a 20-30 decrease in lifespan for male homosexuals vs the heterosexual population with the median age of death less than 50 years of age. The risk of acquiring AIDS through a single act of unprotected sex is 1 in 165 for gay men as opposed to 1 in 715,000 for the rest of the population. One out of every two men who engage in gay sex will become infected with AIDS. Additional areas of increased health problems include higher incidence of alcohol and drug use.

The hue and cry from the left, including the Christian left, is that persecution of gays by closed minded conservatives is an epidemic to be fought with the resources of federal programs and Google campaigns. The reality is that half of lesbians in a 1991 survey reported having been abused - not by hateful heterosexual fundamentalists - but by a lover or partner. Women were reported as being four times as likely to be abused in a lesbian relationship than in a traditional heterosexual marriage. 46% of gay men and 22% of gay women reported abuse within their relationships.

How does that compare to actual persecution by the straight community? The FBI reported the incidence rate of crimes relative to students in schools and uiversities is 0.00003%. Yet the hue and cry from champions of fairness and decency like Tony Jones is that the issue that needs to be addressed is churches not being welcoming enough, ignoring the destructive nature of a significant percentage of gay relationships.

As for the issue of gay marriage or unions, it is largely a myth that any such thing exists on any appreciable scale. One study of 156 "long-term" gay relationships found that not a single one of the couples was able to maintain fidelity. Another study of over 2000 gay men found that the typical number of sexual partners of that group ranged from 101-500, and many had more than 1000. Less than 3% of gay men have had a truly monogamous relationship with only one partner.

Interesting point made about homosexuality being in the genes. Genetic disorders are passed along generationally. Gay sex is sterile - there are no natural offspring, hence, the notion of passing a gay gene on to the next generation seems to militate against natural selection. If being gay is genetic, it could not last for more than a generation. "Gayness" seems to be based more on nurture than nature, and domineering mothers and absent fathers seem to play a major role in the susceptibility to homosexual temptation. The gay lobby goes nuts if any suggestion of the possibility of leaving the lifestyle is made, yet Medline databases between 1966 and 1974 include over 1000 articles offering evidence of homosexuals altering their tendencies and behavior with treatment. Yet we are told, even by "Christian" sources that there is no possibility of change because homosexuality is fixed and a "gift from God"

My point is simply this. Arguing scriptural prohibitions with Christians who advocate for full inclusion of gays in society and the church is futile. Secular activists do not care what scripture says and many consider Christianity to be the most oppressive of all ideologies. Liberal Christians embrace an approach to scripture that makes determining the meaning of the text something akin to either decoding a secret cypher or using a Ouija board. The text doesn't matter to them - they only care who controls the interpretation.

Likewise, framing the issue in the emotional realm of "rights" granted or denied is equally futile. In our post-modern society where truth is always culturally determined, there is no standard for weighing the rights of one group against another. Tribal warfare is the ethos of the day - agitation for causes trumps appeal to legal precedent or the longterm greater good that might be gained by the many if the few exercised restraint.

There might be hope of slowing or reversing the erosion of standards in the church if the emotions of personal anecdotal stories can be placed on the back burner long enough to look at some real data. Quibble over the details of this or that study, but for anyone who really wants to be objective, there is overwhelming evidence that folks in gay relationships are on a self-destructive path. And it is very hip to advocate for health related causes. We have anti-smoking campaigns, anti-drug campaigns - very good ideas - that get promoted to our youth. There are campaigns to eat better and watch cholesterol levels, to avoid fast foods, to avoid sugar, MSG, and preservatives.

Where are the calls to avoid intimate behaviors that could shorten one's life span by 30 years? To say nothing of the potential eternal consequences, this is a health issue perhaps far more statistically signifcant than smoking. Not everyone who smokes gets cancer. I'm sure the stats are a bit out of date, but as of 2003, one out of every two promiscuous gay men was at risk to become infected with AIDS. Who is really loving the gay community - the conservatives who oppose self-destructive behavior or those who give spiritual blessing to it?

Let me frame it this way. The PCUSA, Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church and Evangelical Lutheran church, in the name of being more "Christlike" and less judgmental, have made it church policy to ordain as spiritual leaders and examples those who actively participate in a lifestyle that can wreak havoc on the physical and emotional health of those who participate in that lifestyle. The leaders of those churches are far more responsible for the mental and physical health risks and deaths of gay men and women than any Christian church that upholds the traditional definition of marriage. But in an age where soppy sentiment and feelings of goodwill constantly overrule logic, genuine wisdom, and sane public policy, I expect the evangelical community will accommodate to the trends in the larger culture in a very short time.

Lord have mercy.

What is Essential

2011-05-07T14:31:00.003-05:00

The Rob Bell flap over his views of Hell in “Love Wins” raises an interesting question. Many objected to Bell being criticized, because to them, Hell is not something we know a whole lot about, and our beliefs about the afterlife are not “essential”. So, to some, saying or implying that Bell is “out of bounds” is judgmental and wrong.

A similar question is raised by Roger Olson, who suggests that some Mormons that Mormons maybe could be considered Christians if they accept certain things about Jesus.

Augustine’s famous dictum, “on essentials, unity; on non-essentials, liberty; and in all things charity” can only guide our behavior if we have a consensus on what is essential.

Here’s my take. There are Creedal essentials, consensus issues that all Christians generally already agree on. If someone fudges on those, we have the right and duty to say that person is no longer withing the bounds of “orthodoxy”. These are primarily about Theology and Christology.

Then there are Confessional essentials. If I choose to align myself with a particular movement in Christianity, especially if I am employed by a church or denominationally affiliated organization, I am duty bound to adhere to their doctrinal statement. If I refuse, I may not be less than orthodox, but the denomination has the right to set me aside. These are usually about soteriology and ecclesiology.

Finally there are the non-essentials. Some things in scripture are just obscure. Some things in scripture probably don’t matter. We have the right to take positions, but not to divide over these.

So how does it work? I think in the Rob Bell case, it is a close call as to whether he crossed a universal line or a debated essential that is more a denominational sectarian matter, only because the creeds do not say much about hell. Can one believe in anhilationism and be orthodox? Maybe, maybe not.

Let me explain further.

Order 1 - Creedal essentials

The key issue here is idolatry. We must worship the one true God. When the great creeds were drafted, the primary issues were about the nature of God (Trinity) and the nature of Christ (Christology). Is God one God in three manifestations? No, the Arian view was found to be heretical based on scripture, baptismal formulas known from the apostolic times and other evidence of what the apostles taught. Is Christ fully man? Yes, and the Gnostic view was found to be heretical, again for scriptural, historical and deep theological reasons. So the universal essentials are mostly Creedal. The Trinity as an essential, Christology as an essential. Perhaps some who do not understand the full meaning of the terms can be redeemed, but actively worshiping the wrong God is idolatry and must be out of bounds. There was and remains a broad consensus, meaning the issues were not only decided in the 4th century creeds, but have been reaffirmed time and again for 1600 years after

Order 2 - Confessional essentials

The key issue is soteriology. The primary reason the Reformation happened is over a dispute about how salvation works. It was considered too big an issue to be set aside. Related to this were debates about ecclesiology, the power of the papacy, the succession of bishops, the “priesthood” of all believers. But the primary issue is salvation. And it was considered an essential to both sides. Protestants consider salvation by grace alone to be essential, and Paul seems to say many things like that in the New Testament, as does the writier of Hebrews. There is broad consensus across denominational lines about this. Faith alone also enjoys a broad consensus, particularly since the Joint Declaration on Justification and Vatican 2. Salvation through Christ alone certainly has an almost universal consensus.

Issues relating to sovereignty and free will are related, but not necessarily a dividing point. Sacramentalism has been a big dividing point, because it seems to many Protestants to minimize Sola Fide on one hand and Sola Christus on the other.

Order 3 – Last are the non-essentials, issues for which there is not much consensus. They may be matters that show up at the level of a Denominational or local Statement Of Faith, There may be some close calls. Matters related to modes of baptism might be considered a Confessional essential to some. I think more of views related to sign gifts, eschatology, orders of service, some matters of church polity, etc.

So back to the Rob Bell issue: Is Universalism an Order 2 issue or an order 1 issue? Is one’s view of Hell merely an issue of eschatology or is it an issue of soteriology? If one believes it is related to soteriology, then it is certainly an essential at the confessional level at minimum. It is also related to epistemology in Bell's communication style and the general ambiguity of his position. But the reason for the firestorm is that some consider the issue of Hell to be an essential at some level, while some do not.

For what it is worth, I think the Mormon issue is clearer. The LDS church, it has been abundantly documented, has always taught that Christ had a beginning, that God the Father was once a man. The Mormon view clearly runs afoul of historic orthodox Christology and Trinitarian theology. If Bell's challenge was to question the trinity or deity of Christ, no doubt he would be branded heretic by many from most traditions. But some place his musings on Hell at level 2, so he is branded as outside the norm at the level of Protestant confessions and long held understanding of numerous biblical passages.

And I think at that level, criticism of his views is fair game. Is Rob Bell a heretic for thinking some may have a second chance after the grave? Maybe, maybe not. But if I were a church elder, I would not want him to promote that view in my church.

Still Looking for Ken Miller's God

2011-04-12T13:43:00.006-05:00

Published way back in 1999, Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwins God" was a major event in the Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design battles. A friend loaned me a copy and I finished it today. A few observations:

Miller has an absolute commitment to naturalism as essential to science. And he is opaque to that being a problem for many theists who believe in a God who is outside of nature. He writes: "Presented modestly and accurately, evolution is a simple scientific idea. It claims only that material causes, the laws of physics and chemistry as played out in living things, are sufficient to account for the history and complexity of life. If evolution is neither more nor less than this simple scientific idea, then why does it engender such hostility?" (167)

His book is supposed to find a meeting point between Darwin and Christianity, and yet his methodology as a scientist insists that all of the history of life and all the complexity of creation can be accounted for through material causes. What he is stating here is simply the party line of materialist naturalism, the starting assumptions of Humanist Manifestos I and II and of most any world view that opposes theism and Christianity, yet he wonders why such a view might engender hostility?

Just a few pages later he writes: "At its heart, evolution is a modest idea, a minimal concept, just two points really. First the roots of the present are found in the past; and second, natural processes, observable today, fully explain the biological connections between present and past. On purely scientific terms, these two points leave very little to argue about." (174)

Again, the materialist viewpoint is fully embraced, including the universe spanning assumption that what we observe in the present will always and without fail be consistent with what occurred in the past according to natural law. This is an assumption that virtually all secular scientists and most theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists accept as almost a creedal statement of faith. It is one that creationists have vehemently argued against for decades precisely because it is an assumption. No one disputes the regularity of natural events. Theists have traditionally rejected the notion that such regularity is absolute.

More to the point, it is an assumption that calls into question dozens and dozens of events in both the Old and New Testaments. I have no beef with atheists who adopt naturalism, deny the miraculous and dismiss the Biblical accounts. But what place does this viewpoint have in a book that is supposed to reconcile Darwin to Christianity?

At a minimum, one who professes Christianity should accept the Nicene creed, which explicitly states God is maker of heaven and earth, that Christ was born of a virgin, that Christ rose on the third day after having suffered and died, and acknowledges a life in a world to come. I'm sure Miller, a Catholic, accepts these at some level.

But none of those creedal statements are consistent with the view that material causes account for everything in our world, nor are they consistent with the notion that all events in the past, without exception, can be explained by observations in the present. Add to these the miracles of Jesus, turning water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind and we should see a problem. Adding further the Old Testament miracles of parting the Sea, crossing the Jordan on dry land, fire from heaven, etc., and one would think Miller and others who try to mesh naturalism with Christian faith would have a problem.

Oddly, and quite inconsistently, Miller stumbles into the issue and simply explains it away.

"Any God worthy of the name has to be capable of miracles, and each of the great Western religions attributes a number of very specific miracles to their conception of God. What can science say about a miracle? Nothing. By definition, the miraculous is beyond cxplanation, beyond our understanding, beyond science. This does not mean that miracles do not occur. A key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense-there is the matter of Jesus' Y-chromosome to account for. But that is the point. Miracles by definition, do not have to make scientific sense. ..(239)

What miller has forcefully and rudely taken away from the Creationist - the acts of God in nature in the creation of the universe, the earth and all living beings - he now attempts to reclaim in the events of the Gospels without offending any materialists in his academic community. He believes miracles can occur, but claims science can say nothing about them. So on one hand the possibility of miracles cannot be disproven by science, and on the other they are no threat to science. Does Miller see no conflict between his view that all biological, geological, astronomical and chemical phenomena can be explained in reference to natural law, but yet the virgin birth is something science simply cannot touch?

If the virgin birth is outside the reach of science, on what basis does he insist that nothing miraculous could have occurred in the origins of the universe? The origins of life? In essence, he dismisses the views of creationists for failing to follow scientific materialism to the letter, then reclaims the virgin birth by excluding it from scientific materialism.

Eventually, after arguing for the absolute certainty of the materialist, Darwinist model for the origins and development of life, he has to somehow find a way to squeeze God back into his thesis. He does so by introducing the idea of quantum indeterminacy. In short, the regularity of nature is not entirely predictable at the subatomic level. This means, for Miller, that determinism is false, that in the end science cannot predict or know everything, and somehow this leaves room for both freedom and for the activity of God.

"Even the most devout believer would have to say that when God does act in the world, He does so with care and with subtlety. At a minimum, the continuing existence of the universe itself can be attributed to God. The existence of the universe is not self-explanatory, and to a believer the existence of every particle, wave and field is a product of the continuing will of God. That's a start which would keep most of us busy, but the Western understanding of God requires more than universal maintenance. Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with. To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. (241)

Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God. It is merely the assertion of a possibility. And in the end, IF God acts at the quantum level to sovereignly influence events, possibly including the development of life itself, God's actions would NOT be detectable.

So belief is relegated to the realm of the unverifiable, allowing science the sole claim to objective certainty. He has reconciled faith to Darwinism by sequestering them into separate realities. Nothing about quantum indeterminacy requires belief in God, but for Miller, it is sufficient to insert God into that gap in our knowledge to allow some to still believe without opposing the scientific academy.

Here he does the same thing to ID proponents he did to the Creationists. He uses the very logic for his own view that he denied to them. He insists that ID amounts to a "god of the gaps" approach, where whatever we cannot fully explain by natural mechanisms is by default attributed to God. Such a suggestion (which does not accurately represent the ID position) is impermissible. Yet our gap in knowledge about why photons randomly pass through a mirror leaves an opening somehow for God to invisibly act. In what way is inserting God into quantum indeterminacy not also a "God of the gaps" approach?

Ultimately, nothing about Miller's (Darwin's) God resembles the Biblical, miracle-working Creator. Those who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection may not have used scientific terms to describe what they saw, but none would likely suggest the resurrection was explainable by natural causes alone, or that the action of God in that event was beyond detection. Instead, they insisted that they saw, held, touched something real. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. (1 John 1:1) In the Biblical accounts, God created all, acted in history, did things that were visible, verifiable and left physical evidence. If Miller finds such notions of acts of God that left tangible evidence unscientific, on what real basis does he still believe in the virgin birth?

There are other details: I think he misunderstands Henry Morris' objections to radiometric dating, I think he under represents Behe's irreducible complexity arguments. Written in 1999 he could not have dealt with Stephen Meyer's arguments regarding the origins of life or ID arguments regarding genetic information and specified complexity.

But most importantly, I think Miller fails in the same way all attempts to mesh Darwin with Christianity fail. Science is given magisterial authority that cannot be questioned and scriptural accounts are diluted to the point that they are unrecognizable. And he trips over his own arguments.

In the end, Miller's book is an account that details THAT he believes in both Darwin and God, details WHY he accepts Darwin, but in no way explains WHY he believes in God or why anyone else should. If his intent was to reconcile faith and science, it fails to do anything other than elevate science over faith and turn faith into a mere irrational hope based on indeterminacy.

The Second Punch Always Draws the Flag

2011-04-04T21:23:00.003-05:00

We've seen it countless times in sports. Player 1 provokes player 2, probably several times during the course of a game with verbal jabs or some illegal form of holding, punching, grabbing, all just out of the sight of the official. Then player 2 in frustration retaliates with a push or a punch and the whistle blows. Player 2 is penalized, ejected, suspended while player 1 gets away with no penalty. We all agree player 2 should have kept his cool. But we wish player 1 would be held accountable.

I wonder if we don't see a similar scenario in the theological debates between the "conservatives" and the "progressives" that keep bubbling to the surface in news reports, the latest being the flap over Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins".

Here's what I mean. Conservatives generally are in a defensive posture. They see themselves as “watchmen”. Their intent is to "conserve". When it comes to basic orthodox belief, the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ as God-Man, they will quickly react if someone approaches denial of either tenet of the faith. TD Jakes and Phillips Craig and Dean have been questioned regarding the Trinity, for example. Likewise Evangelicals will be quick to respond when certain Evangelical basics are challenged, such as the "Solas", Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia. The Virgin Birth, to the conservative is an essential as is the bodily resurrection. For the conservative, it is the duty of the church leader to "guard the deposit" of the faith because the apostle's teaching is the foundation of everything else.

Many of the cutting edge thinkers in the post-modern era do not locate the faith in revealed propositional truth. Scripture, for these, is not inerrant, not divinely inspired if that means the human element is minimized. As such, "the faith" is not static. It is dynamic. It is shaped by the Holy Spirit in the context of changing cultures. For those who have rejected conservative Christianity, reconsidering same-sex marriage is no less permissible and even necessary than reconsidering the church's stance on slavery.

And so, progressives continue to push at the boundaries, to question pretty much every established "truth". Was Paul's cosmology part of divine revelation or inherited from his culture? Is the Trinity a summation of unfathomable scriptural truth or is it a philosophical formulation from a hellenistic paradigm? Is Hell a destination for eternal judgment or is it an "interpretation" owing more to Dante's Inferno than the real "spirit of Jesus"?

Since, in the mind of a post-modern theologian, theological progress is made by boldly moving forward and breaking the shackles of old paradigms, everything must be questioned. Since for many post-modern church leaders, truth is culture bound and can never be fully captured in human language, definitions are loose, vague, often contradictory. And since nothing is more arrogant than claiming to know truth, no one is more worthy of having his theological nose tweaked than the theological conservative.

So the provocative statements keep coming. They are not merely provocative, they are often disrespectful and crude. Without naming names, a few examples may suffice. Conservatives are portrayed as imprisoned in a modernist paradigm where thought patterns owe more to enlightenment rationalism than to Christianity. Those concerned with traditional moral values are engaged in "adventures in missing the point". The virgin birth is one of many doctrines that, like a single brick in a wall, can fall away without compromising the wall. Those whose understanding of the world includes fiscal conservatism can without remorse be referred to with a vulgar sexual slur "teabagger". Those who refuse to consider same-sex unions are motivated by homophobia and fail to understand the cultural context of relevant biblical passages. Those who desire laws that protect the unborn and a nuclear family are addicted to power. Conservatives are accused of gleefully celebrating the doctrine of Hell, of thinking of themselves as the priveleged "us" and the unbelievers as the despised "them" and thus labeled as arrogant and vengeful.

I've noted that those who defend Rob Bell, valiantly, passionately and at length have, to the best of my knowledge, never asked for a more evenhanded representation of conservative views from those who make statements like those above. So the statements keep coming - provoke, jab, taunt, dismiss, disrespect, chide.

And what happens when the conservative responds?

What happens is what we see in the Rob Bell flap. Bell is the one whose language is vague, non-commital. His questioning of the traditional understanding of Hell is, at least, provocative. Reviewers have noted with direct quotes that he has written that one who sees belief in Hell as a part of the full biblical picture advocates a belief that is "toxic". He claims to not be a bible scholar or theologian on one hand, but puts forth in a FOX News interview a sophisticated linguistic analysis of the original greek word for eternity that suggests first century believers did not think of eternity in reference to a future state, thus implying those who see the lake of fire in Revelation as a concrete future reality have been wrong all these centuries. He claimed in that same interview to still believe in Hell but defines it in such a vague way as to be quite open to interpretation about what he really means. He instead seems to make central the idea that Hell refers to our suffering in the here and now, at least downplaying the view that hell is a future state of judgment. His book is provocative in what it implies and in what it leaves open-ended, and it is provocative in what it suggests about the traditional conservative view.

But when conservatives publish long, detailed, respectful and footnoted responses to Rob Bell, with careful scripture references and analysis of gaps in Bell's exegesis, all we hear about from the progressives is how "mean-spiritied" and unChristlike the conservatives are. We're told conservatives are intentionally misrepresenting Rob Bell's book.

Now much of this could easily be cleared up by Bell himself. Let me suggest this little word: Clarity. Rob Bell could easily state clearly whether he believes there will be human beings who will face eternal judgment after death. Whether he does or does not, his clear response would be a statement we can all engage with and if necessary agree to disagree. That is the sort of statement that our proverbial official might be able to throw a flag over, and Bell might be the one who would be penalized. Instead, with the provocative and generally vague statements shielded in the subjective realm of "interpretation" his defenders point the finger at his critics and cry "unfair!", begging the ref to throw the flag not at the one provoking, but at the one provoked.

I understand that many critiqued Bell's book before it was published based on a promotional video. They had not read the book. But was the video not provocative in and of itself? Was the video not a poke in the eye toward those whose view of the doctrine of hell fairly traditional? Did Rob Bell and his publisher not anticipate that an open-ended questioning of beliefs that seem to most Evangelicals to be fairly well attested in scripture might stir controversy? Is anyone really shocked that questioning a long held belief in eternal judgment generated controversy?

So Rob Bell promotes a book with a video that is deeply troubling to conservatives, follows it up with a book that remains deeply troubling to conservatives, and conservatives do what conservatives do, examine his exegesis, parse his statements and compare it all to biblical references and their various statements of faith. Progressives cry foul at the critique of Rob Bell’s thesis, but see nothing but valiance in his pushing the envelope with open-ended questions, a dearth of clarity and a portrayal of conservatives as those who tell a FALSE story about Jesus that is disgusting to the world. Quoting from Bell’s Preface: “There are a growing number of us who have become eacutely aware that Jesus’s story has been hijacked by a number of other stories, stories Jesus isn’t interested in telling, because they have nothing to do with what He came to do. The plot has been lost, and it’s time to reclaim it. I’ve written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomach to churn, and their heart to utter those resolute words, “I wound never be a part of that.”

Are we really to believe Rob Bell had no idea those words would seem a slap in the face to a huge number of evangelicals? Does it never occur to Bell's defenders that he has at least some responsibility to accurately portray the position of conservatives regarding God being both loving AND just?

Sure, we should be gracious and not over-react. Sure we should try to be accurate in our portrayal of another's position. But when will the double standard stop?

I don't relish angry exchanges with those who disagree with me about any issue. Not at all. But I at least want a fair debate. I'd happily have an honest debate where terms are defined, where my views are fairly represented and respected and the rules fairly enforced. If I disagree with someone, fine. If they disagree with me - no problem. I've had plenty of debates over the years about very serious theological issues and been able to shake hands afterword. Debates about Calvinism, eschatology and divorce come to mind as examples of long detailed debates that did not lead to divisive bitter exchanges.

But I don't care to deal in petty charges of fairness when terms are ill-defined and only one side is held accountable for the events that led to the altercation.

Sure, John Piper may have been well advised not to tweet "farewell, Rob Bell".

But who threw the first punch?

A Creed for the 21st Century Evangelical Academic

2010-10-30T11:04:00.002-05:00

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 worshipped 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

2010-07-30T11:28:00.000-05:00

Good points.

The Anti-Drilling Commission

Theistic Evolutionists - With Friends Like These...

2010-03-28T19:29:00.008-05:00

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.

That particular conflict is getting a lot of play lately, even at the uber-theistic-evolution site Biologos. At least they are acknowledging evolution is incompatable with a "normal" reading of Genesis, Paul and Peter. Their "intellectually satisfying" answer is to treat Darwinism as infallible and find a way to reinterpret significant critical passages of scripture so as not to ruffle the feathers of the scientific consensus.

But Dembski finds it odd that those who describe themselves as Christian theists find it necessary and even imperative to embrace naturalistic Darwinism, and he finds it quite disturbing that many see it necessary to attack both creationism in all its forms and intelligent design.

When I got into this business 20 years ago, I thought that any Christian (and indeed any theist), given solid evidence against Darwinian evolution ... would be happy to trash it and move to some form of intelligent design (whether discrete creations or gradual guidance or information front-loading or whatever). But that has not happened. Theistic evolutionists have now baptized Darwinism. Thus, in the 2001 PBS evolution series, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller referred to himself as an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinian. Francis Collins and his associates at www.biologos.org follow Miller here in trying to convince religious believers that Darwinian evolution provides the best fit with their faith.

Ironically, theistic evolutionists now make common cause with atheistic evolutionists—specifically against ID. ID has become public enemy number one for both atheistic and theistic evolutionists..."

Exactly what I have been sensing. The TE crowd believes the only way to save Christianity is to find some way to reinterpret scripture, because the only way to save Christianity intellectually in the eyes of the "irrefutable truth" of evolution, is to fully embrace Evolution as fact and bend Christianity to fit it. The following quote was a bit more disturbing.

"...Consequently, not just the mainstream academy but the mainstream Christian academy (Wheaton College, Calvin College, Seattle Pacific University, etc. — most schools in the CCCU) have now closed their doors to ID and to hiring faculty that explicitly support it."

So we have reached the state of affairs where it is academically impermissible at evangelical Christian schools of higher learning to question Darwinian naturalism. One cannot entertain even intelligent design and teach science at Wheaton? His charge is appropriate:

The Christian academy is as guilty here as the non-Christian. Thus, we find theistic evolutionists not just criticizing ID but denying it any legitimacy whatsoever. How convenient, since adopting the party line grants theistic evolutionists acceptance in the secular culture denied to ID proponents.

Dembski sees this as liberating. He believes those who reject Darwinism should feel free to pursue their research and ideas without even bothering to seek acceptance from the academic gatekeepers, not only at secular universities but at evangelical colleges.

I hope he is right. But ridicule and contempt are already the norm for anyone who questions the "facts" of naturalism and common descent even on the "Christian" TE blogs. I don't see things getting any easier.

The funny thing is that the TE advocates seem to think that by dismissing anyone who questions Darwin as intellectually inferior they will retain a level of respect in the secular academy. I think that is a fools wager. Why would those who believe Darwin spells the death knell of Christianity have any respect for those who want to affirm on one hand that all things can be explained by purely natural processes, but insist God is really behind it all in ways that are completely undetectable to science? Theistic Evolution will be as unacceptable in the secular academy as ID and Creationism are now.

What will Wheaton College and Calvin College do then to retain their accreditation and academic status?

Glenn Beck vs Social Justice

2010-03-24T22:21:00.002-05:00

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.

My impressions, watching Beck, were that he was imprecise in his reasoning and much too loose with his quotes. While there may be a line that can be drawn from the various liberation theologies Wallis has sympathized with to Marxist ideologies, Beck tended to make a lot of jumps from dot to dot to draw that line. In that regard Beck is an easy guy to discredit. Not using the full context of Wallis' quote is poor documentation and unfair, even if Wallis’ politics are quite far to the left. And such imprecision unfortunately plays into the hand of genuine leftists by giving them vivid examples of mistreatment and false accusations to bash the right with.

Unfortunately in our media saturated sound-bite culture, it is difficult to get people to listen to extended evidential argumentation for a point of view, so folks like Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity make a living by serving up short, truncated snippetts to make their case, usually with a lot of vigor and urgency to rile us up and keep us watching – ratings matter. Olberman, Maddow and Michael Moore are less successful and less honest on the left. Reminds me of how much I miss the old "Firing Line" program where William Buckley could quietly engage in real, detailed debate with George McGovern with no need of flashy graphics, shouting matches and provocative teasers.

Here's the question though. Is "social justice" a bad thing or a good thing? Should Christians flee "social justice" churches?

My take is simple. Words have meanings and implications. While individuals may be fuzzy about their usage of words out of linguistic laziness, I think the words still matter. And here's the problem with "social justice" as a term.

The first word "social" implies that this issue of "justice" is at the level of society. Whatever is "unjust" about the particular issues social justice advocates are concerned with is caused at the level of "social structures". Those who want to correct the unjust social structures do have a tendency to look to government solutions to “systemic inequities”. And whether or not all social justice advocates would describe themselves as socialist or Marxist, the whole notion of "unjust social structures" does dovetail very well with Marxist ideology, which was probably the point Beck was trying to make, however poorly and clumsily.

The second word – “justice” - may be even more troublesome. Equating the plight of the poor with "justice" carries the implication that the poor are poor primarily because they have been wronged in some way, oppressed by someone. I am not naive. Certainly there are slum lords who commit crimes against their poorer tenants by not living up to agreements or violating legal requirements. Certainly there are loan sharks, dishonest bankers, unscrupulous businessmen who take advantage of the misfortune of others. Many such activities should rightly be described as crimes and should fall under the category of “injustice”. And the way to deal with those injustices is on a case by case basis. The individuals who are wronged should have recourse to seek justice against the individuals who wronged them. Society has to regulate bad behavior by law and enforcement. That is a social matter, and that is a justice matter.

But the lurking implication of "social injustice" is that the poor are always by definition oppressed and that the rich (by definition anyone who is not poor) are by definition oppressors. "Justice" moves away from "party A seeks justice for the wrong committed by party B", to "group A seeks general reparations against group B" under the assumption that all in group B are by definition oppressors. In that sense, capitalism is itself an "unjust social structure" that needs to be remedied by a systemic change. Indeed, Jim Wallis’ magazine “Sojourners” was once named the “Post-American”.

This does play directly into the hands of the ideological left, including the socialist and Marxist line of thought. I do see a strong strain of class-warfare rhetoric in the ideas of the religious left, seeking collective justice for collective sins - independent of the actual guilt or innocence of the individuals in group B or the actual victimization of the individuals in group A. If the sins are collective in nature, then the remedy can be collective, as Glen Beck suggested, stealing from the rich oppressors en masse and distributing it to the poor victims as a class.

While Glen Beck's presentation on Tuesday was bombastic, poorly sourced, and imprecisely reasoned, his general point was, I fear, valid. Those who might favor a Marxist worldview have and still do use God-talk to play on Christian instincts of morality. If it is immoral for the rich to oppress the poor, then systemic change can be justified as a remedy - government intervention can be called for. Ideas that are at least consistent with socialist agendas can be implemented through an appeal to social justice – and those who are simply wanting to help the poor can be unwitting supporters of far left political agendas.

So, yes, if I see a church making a particular appeal to "social justice" as a cause, I do immediately have to wonder, what is the definition of social justice? How does 'social' justice differ from regular justice? What are the particular injustices society has committed? What are the remedies for injustices committed by a society? How am I as an individual implicated in the injustice committed by the society? And if the answers to those questions suggest "collectivism", that is a church I would not support.

Why I am a Conservative - Part 1

2010-03-23T12:43:00.003-05:00

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.

I vividly recall an old segment of William Buckley’s “Firing Line” program where he interviewed Malcolm Muggeridge. Muggeridge made a statement to the effect that one of the greatest contributions of Christianity to the Western world was it’s pessimism. I find that a profound statement in an age when many Christians on the theological and political left seem to want to create an earthly utopia through the expansion of government.

Limited government is the first principle of conservatism and it is grounded in the doctrine of the fall. The ancient dictum “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” ought to resonate deeply with anyone who believes human beings are fallen. It ought to be an unquestioned principle for any Christian or any student of history, that human beings are capable of being exceedingly cruel. Those who hold the power of government, of police force, of military force, are therefore potential despots and potential tyrants. Not that all will succumb to the temptation, but that any leader may. Conservatives recognize this principle and for that reason theologically conservative Christians who believe in original sin tend to lean toward political conservatism as well. It is why I generally look at Christians who embrace the political left and wonder if their theology includes a clear view of human fallenness.

Limited government does not mean minimalist government or no government. The need for a court system, for police, for national defense, are all included in the calculation of how to have a civil society in a fallen world. While it is true powerful rulers can commit horrible evils, it is also true individuals can commit significant evil as well. No conservative would deny the need for law, law enforcement and national defense. But the greatest civil evil is tyranny, too much power in the hands of those who might abuse it.

The founding fathers clearly understood things in this way, which is why I think it correct to say the United States was founded on a “Judeo-Christian consensus.” The separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, the development of the idea of term limits, all were a response to “tyranny” which was nothing more than sin at the level of the state. While it may be true that some of the ideas surrounding the “pursuit of happiness” were individualist notions influenced by the enlightenment, I believe the majority of the principles of our government came from the Reformation and a very clear view of the fall of man and the possibility of the abuse of power.

As one contrast to this, Barack Obama, in a 2001 interview given while a Senator, indicated he believed that the Constitution enumerated “negative liberties” regarding what the government should not do, but that he felt it was time to move in a direction that included “positive liberties”, rights that the government should extend on behalf of the people. I quote:

…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Note that he indicated that the "negative rights" included "constraints" that the government was under. He wanted to codify into the constitutional understanding that certain benefits of the government were “rights”, which expands the role of government in the lives of individuals. This is clearly a move away from limited government and toward a more powerful state, a move toward collectivism and away from individual responsibility, a move which does not show the level of skepticism about the nature of man that leads to a limited government. It includes the “redistribution of wealth” as a “social justice” issue, (for those like Jim Wallis who think Glen Beck is making stuff up).

As a Christian, I believe the greatest political mistake is the theological mistake of thinking of human nature as perfectible. Nothing scares me more than the naivete of the religious left who continually ask the government to right every “social” or “economic” wrong with some bureaucratic solution, consolidating more and more and more power in the hands of the state. It flows from a falsely optimistic view of the human condition, from the belief that evils are “systemic” and can be corrected by changing the “system”, failing to account for the evil that infects the hearts of the humans who run the systems. Changing the systems only relocates the problem, it does not solve it. And seeking to solve inequities by granting more power to government only makes it easier for the opportunistic and unprincipled to seize control of the system. It creates a structure that is tailor made for the tyrant.

I did not vote for Barack Obama, and I have very few political points of agreement with Jim Wallis. I am a conservative because no single fact of human existence is plainer than the reality of evil in the human heart, evil that repeatedly has seized and abused power on a massive scale throughout human history. Limited government is the first principle of conservatism and the first reason I am a conservative.

Jill Stanek

2010-03-07T08:08:00.003-06:00

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

While Shoveling the Driveway

2010-02-24T17:23:00.003-06:00

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.

Now I don't doubt that weather forecasters are honest professionals. Nor do I think that the scientific principles of using temperature and atmospheric pressure and wind patterns to forecast the weather are invalid. I don't doubt that the tools and technology used are state of the art. I am not questioning science.

But I do think it fairly obvious that even with sound science and the most advanced tools, meteorologists simply cannot account for all the variables in real weather patterns. Things change. If we could gather more and more data points, we might be more and more accurate, but our ability to account for the variables is finite, much more finite than the variables themselves.

So, I have to admit that I am and have been a little skeptical of the dire predictions about manmade global warming. Not that I doubt there is evidence for global warming. I just doubt that all the variables have been accounted for. I doubt that contrary evidence has always been given a fair hearing. I am skeptical about the role of politics in the debate and the possibility that there might be money to be made in "green" industry adds a bit to the skepticism. Sure, I can recycle, ride my bike instead of drive and turn off unused appliances. Not sure I think we should ban all offshore drilling for oil or ignore Alaskan oil in times of a financial and national security crisis, but that is maybe a separate issue.

The point is, I don't think it makes sense that if my weatherman can't tell me whether it will rain five days from now some other guy can tell me with cocksure certainty that the world is irreversibly warming or that driving electric cars will reverse the trend if it is.

Do I doubt that global weather forecasters are being honest? Not really, though there is, after all, money involved at some level. There are the troubling allegations of ignored contrary data and unfair treatment of dissenters. Do I think that the scientific principles of using temperature and trend data are invalid? No. I don't doubt that the tools and technology used are state of the art. I am not questioning science. I'm just not sure the people involved are clear about the limitations of science, or the objectivity of fallen human beings.

And so, I'm more than a little skeptical that origins science, committed as it is to the unprovable assumption of uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, can look at bone fragments, rock formations, radiometric isotopes, and genetic sequences in the present and tell me with absolute certainty what took place billions of years in the past.

Do I doubt that most such scientists are honest? Not really – but there are, after all, research grants, degrees and prestigious university positions involved. There are the troubling allegations of ignored contrary data and unfair treatment of dissenters. Do I think that the scientific principles of biology and genetics and paleontolgy and astronomy are invalid? Not at all. I don't doubt that the tools and technology used are state of the art. I am not questioning science. I'm just not sure the people involved are clear about the limitations of science, or the objectivity of fallen human beings.

I suspect, like the meteorologists who got Sunday’s forecast wrong, there are variables scientists have not and never can account for. I suspect the science has limits in both the methodology of the science iteslf and reasoning powers of the scientists, who are, after all, only human.

But that is skepticism about the reach of science, an assessment of its limitation. It is not a repudiation of science itself.

It did, after all snow Sunday night, somewhat as predicted. - They were only off by seven inches of wet snow on a one-day forecast.

But who am I to question the experts?

Theistic Inconsistency

2010-02-23T07:07:00.002-06:00

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 detectible 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.

For example, one need not have required access to modern scientific instruments, had one been present, to follow the events of the death and resurrection of Christ with a fair amount of accuracy. One could have been present at the foot of the cross and verified that the body of Jesus had no pulse and that respiration had ceased. If one had the instruments, one could have verified a lack of brain activity. If the New Testament accounts are true, then Jesus was dead by any standard of death, and this fact would have been a detectible scientific reality in the natural world.

On the third day, if the biblical accounts are true, one likewise could have stood beside Thomas and examined the wounds. One might have been able to take a pulse, listen to the breathing and taken note of the alert mind of a risen Christ. Again, these would have been phenomena that would be detectible in every meaningful way - one might say valid scientific observations. Christ was alive.

Now here is the problem. The resurrection was a detectible effect, we are told that real men saw, heard and touched the risen Christ in the natural realm. But what of the cause? Would science have been able to find any cause within the exclusive confines of natural law to describe how the resurrection occurred or what natural mechanism was used? The reviewer of Meyer’s book, anonymously blogging as RJS, asserts frequently that she firmly believes God works within natural law in the process of evolution. Would she impose the same limitation on the resurrection? What natural law process might account for the resurrection? Is the resurrection a supernatural event? Is it historical? What is the implication for science?

To say the resurrection is in the realm of faith, and not science, is to undercut the New Testemant insistence on the eyewitness accounts and the tangible events. Thomas touched the wounds. Peter ate fish with the risen Christ. Yet to insist on a natural mechanism for how the Resurrection occurred is to destroy the clearly supernatural meaning of the event and its link to our resurrection and eternal hope. If it was accomplished by a natural mechanism, was Deity even necessary? What then is the meaning of the resurrection?

As a second example, think of the virgin birth. Science could have determined that Mary was indeed pregnant at one point when she had not been previously. Science might have even been able to sample the blood type of the child and examine the genetic code of the Christ in utero, had such tools been available. But the claim of Christianity is that "the Holy Spirit overshadowed" Mary and that the child in her womb was not the product of normal human conception. Christianity is dependent on the idea that Christ did not have a human father. The cause of his conception cannot found in natural law and if it is, then the deity of Christ is called into question and Christianity is radically altered.

This reality of visible effects in nature for which no natural cause can be found is a central theme of all the miracles of the New Testament. The blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, all pointing to a very simple idea that a child can apprehend but no scientist can comprehend and no naturalist can allow - God is above nature and is not bound by its laws or by definitions of science imposed by secular jurists.

Now, presumably, most Theistic evolutionists accept the resurrection and virgin birth. To do so they must acknowledge in some sense that certain causes in the Biblical narrative are not within the reach of natural law. And here, they cannot seem to live consistently with their scientific commitment to naturalism. It seems most have put an impenetrable wall around the sacred pursuit of science, never allowing for the thought that deity might violate their naturalist code, yet they must allow a small space for the supernatural in their acceptance of the resurrection.

TE advocates have accepted the premise regarding origins that all causes of the development of life must without exception be explained in terms of natural law alone. One of the key objections to Meyer's book was that his argument for the intelligent design of the cell proposed no mechanism which would enable ID to work. Now if "design" is the result of nature alone, then a mechanism would in fact be needed. But if design is by nature alone, then design is no longer design. What natural mechanism designed a Rembrandt painting or a Shakespearian sonnet? To ask for a mechanism is to ask Meyer to abandon the very idea he is arguing for - that natural mechanisms alone may be insufficient to account for the level of complexity and functionality present. The blindness to the logical absurdity of asking one who denies natural mechanisms can produce cellular complexity to provide a natural mechanism is truly remarkable.

Now I do not say that belief in natural causes alone is necessarily logically inconsistent for an atheist. What I am saying is that to argue for natural causes alone in the realm of origins and then accept supernatural causes in life of Christ is logically inconsistent for a theist. The only alternative for one who accepts the rigid naturalistic view of science is to adopt that standard in both the realms of the lab and the realm of the sancturary and deny that the miraculous in the New Testament is possible. But they cannot be consistent in both realms.

That hard line approach TE advocates take toward ID and especially creationism is often condescending and occasionally venomous. It is as if there is a commitment made, that once one dons a lab coat, one must be rigidly committed to the modernist notion that human beings, beginning from reason alone, examining natural data alone, can unlock every secret of the universe. It is to agree with the non-theist that mystical notions like revelation and miracle must be sequestered away in the irrational realm of faith and to violate this rigid rule is a treasonous betrayal of establishment science, punishable by ridicule, ostracism and ad hominem attacks. Yet, when that same person takes off the lab coat and steps into the church building, the only realm in which faith in something beyond nature is acceptable, all is well once again. This is both unfair and schizophrenic.

I frankly find the Young-Earth Creationist position far more consistent, even if particular evidences and conclusions are incorrect. (I don't see the need to insist on a literal 24 hour day or a 6000 year age for the earth, for example) The Young Earth Creationist assumes nature has an order precisely because nature is created by an intelligent mind, therefore science is possible - but science is limited by the finiteness of man and the fallenness of man. The YEC advocate admits and insists that there is cause and effect built into nature. But if one believes in the Resurrection, and one is consistent, then one must allow that not every effect had a natural cause.

And that, again, is the crux of the Evolution debate. Are we to accept the naturalist definition of science, which limits all natural effects to purely natural explanations and which if held consistently makes belief in numerous events in the New Testament untenable? Or are we to reject that narrow definition of science and open the door to the possibility that many events in the origin and development of life on earth might be beyond the realm of natural causes?

Seems most of the folks at JC, Biologos and other places have chosen to toe the naturalist line, at least in the lab. That is their right. What is neither fair nor ethical, in my mind, is to impose that academic and thoroughly secular definition on every other person of faith who works in the sciences. Young Earthers, Old Earthers and ID advocates all see the inconsistency and elitism and want no part of it. Either let God be God in all of nature and all of earth history or give up the pretense one believes in the Biblical portrayal of God. But don't ask other believers to abandon belief in a God who is beyond nature simply because they don a lab coat and dare to participate in reasoned empirical observation of nature.

The TE position likes to portray itself as true to real science and RJS has often said her goal is to protect young students from the disillusionment of being confronted with the “facts” of science after being led astray by the wooden literalism of the uneducated. But I believe the false and dichotomous commitment to naturalism is far more poisonous to the faith than suggesting that the “apparent” design of the cell might be the result of actual design, or that the author of natural law might not be bound by it.

William Lane Craig on Romans 9

2010-01-17T13:19:00.005-06:00

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.

Earlier in his letter Paul addresses the question of what advantage there is to Jewish identity if one fails to live up to the demands of the law (2. 17-3.21). He says that although being Jewish has great advantages in being the recipients of God's revelatory oracles, nevertheless being Jewish gives you no automatic claim to God's salvation. Instead, Paul asserts the radical and shocking claim that "He is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is of the heart, spiritual and not literal" (2. 28-29).

Paul held that "no human being will be justified in God's sight by works of the law" (3.20); rather "we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (3. 29). That includes Gentiles as well as Jews. "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one" (3. 29-30).

Do you realize what that meant to Paul's Jewish contemporaries? Gentile "dogs" who have faith in Christ may actually be more Jewish than ethnic Jews and go into the Kingdom while God's chosen people are shut out! Unthinkable! Scandalous!

Paul goes on to support his view by appeal to the example of none less than Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation. Abraham, Paul explains, was pronounced righteous by God before he received circumcision. "The purpose," says Paul, "was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised [i.e., the Gentiles] and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised [note the qualification!] but also follow the example of faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised" (4.11-12).

This is explosive teaching. Paul begins chapter 9 by expressing his profound sorrow that ethnic Jews have missed God's salvation by rejecting their Messiah [= Christ]. But he says it's not as though God's word had failed. Rather, as we have already seen, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants" (9. 6-7). Being ethnically Jewish is not enough; rather one must be a child of the promise—and that, as we've seen, may include Gentiles and exclude Jews.

The problematic, then, with which Paul is wrestling is how God's chosen people the Jews could fail to obtain the promise of salvation while Gentiles, who were regarded by Jews as unclean and execrable, could find salvation instead. Paul's answer is that God is sovereign: He can save whomever He wants, and no one can gainsay God. He has the freedom to have mercy upon whomever He wills, even upon execrable Gentiles, and no one can complain of injustice on God's part.

So—and this is the crucial point—who is it that God has chosen to save? The answer is: those who have faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul writes in Galatians (which is a sort of abbreviated Romans), "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3. 7). Jew or Gentile, it doesn't matter: God has sovereignly chosen to save all those who trust in Christ Jesus for salvation.

That's why Paul can go on in Romans 10 to say, "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved'" (10. 12-13). Reformed theology can make no sense at all of this wonderful, universal call to salvation. Whosoever will may come.

Paul's burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God's election but to broaden it. He wants to take in all who have faith in Christ Jesus regardless of their ethnicity. Election, then, is first and foremost a corporate notion: God has chosen for Himself a people, a corporate entity, and it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members of that corporate group destined to salvation.

I find this to be a very reasonable view, consistent with the whole context of Romans and consistent with the full reading of scripture.

Misquoting Augustine Part 5

2010-01-01T18:31:00.003-06:00

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.

Creation as described in Genesis 1-3 is a completely supernatural event where “nature” is in the process of being formed. As such it seems theologically foolish to think that “natural” explanations of what happened in the formation of the universe can be found.

For example, I would tend to think it a necessary axiom that if a Creator created all things, then the initial acts of creation involved not only the creation of matter and energy, but also included the creation of time and the creation of natural law to govern all He created. Until the creation is fully realized, natural law cannot be thought of as having a full definition. So the description given in Genesis 1 is an attempt to put into language processes that cannot be explained in terms of natural law at all – precisely because nature itself is not yet complete.

Russell Humphrey’s much maligned proposal that a sudden expansion of the universe similar to a big-bang would potentially lead to massive distortions in time is of interest even if his precise theory is wrong. The possibility that stars might be billions of years old in relative time while our own solar system might be younger is nothing more than an acknowledgment that time is a variable. Whatever forces might have been present in the creation of a universe out of nothing might imply that time during the creation week cannot be measured by current clocks.

If this is true, the length of a day in Genesis 1 is completely irrelevant. A “solar day” is a term that would correspond to nothing yet realized in “nature”. Words are usually defined by context, and a context in which there is no sun should lead us to be somewhat humble in asserting a day is a solar day.

Perhaps this idea that natural law cannot apply during the creation of nature seems “unscientific” to the academic mind. But it is not a repudiation of science. The suggestion that some things are beyond nature in no way suggests nature is itself unpredictable or that nothing is governed by natural law. Belief in a Creator leads to belief in an orderly creation and ultimately to a strong belief in natural law – but does not lead to a belief that natural law is the final reality. My own personal view is that until creation was complete, natural law was incomplete.

Even if I were to grant that “nature is all there is”, I would still be quite skeptical about assertions made from present observations about events that took place billions of years ago. But bald naturalism is not my concern here. I am dealing specifically with those who wish to confine a theistic belief in a creator with a naturalistic approach to the physical data. If God is beyond nature, then a supernatural creation event would seem to me to be beyond natural science.

I do not mean to propose a new amateur cosmology. Precisely the opposite. I am simply saying the events of the creation week would have been completely unique, completely unobservable, and is in a separate category from belief in an orderly knowable universe once creation was complete. As such my purely personal and somewhat “loose” view of Genesis 1-11 is something like this:

At some undefined point in the past, God began his work of creation. The brief and summary biblical description of separating the light from the darkness can probably not be correlated to anything we can now observe, nor should we place any time frame on it. The word “day” may well describe a period with a beginning and an end but we should not be concerned about its length. All the stuff of nature may all have been in a state quite different from what we now can observe. The Biblical revelation depicts real events but only minimally described.

The acts of separating seas from land likewise should not be tied too closely to anything natural law can currently observe. The biblical description of the setting of the sun and moon as “lights to govern” the day and night may be descriptions of the “settling” of the cosmos into a more normative state. Time itself might have been fairly ill-defined. Certainly natural law might have begun to reach a level of consistency as the building blocks of the natural order are placed, but it should not be assumed natural law is the final reality or is without some variance as the Creator continues to create.

I would think at this place in the narrative that the appearance of trees and plants and vegetation could have happened relatively rapidly. Genesis gives us a brief outline without any detailed explanation. What is described actually happened, but we cannot even speculate what methods were used.

I would tend to believe that the appearance of animals, birds and sea creatures also happened in a relatively short “geological” time, but would not insist on 24 hour “days” even at this stage of the creation.

None of the above is central to the faith. But I do believe the linkage between sin and death is a fairly critical issue and so the question of animal death before the fall takes on a great deal of importance. Theistic evolutionists would suggest that a normal cycle of life and death would occur prior to the fall because animals would be eating plants. But in no way should the eating of vegetation be considered “death” before the fall. Mowing my lawn does not “kill” the grass. “Life” in scripture is generally associated with breath, blood or both. Until the first animal death, the first shedding of blood, the first cessation of breath, there is no biblical “death”.

It has been suggested by some, including CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, that animal death in the sense of a calm, peaceful ending of natural life would not be inconsistent with the death/sin linkage in the New Testament. Death through violence, through the chase, with pain and suffering might be a better description of death as a result of sin. I would not hold that view but would not strongly oppose it. Another view suggested by Lewis is that the fall of Lucifer (which would have happened before Satan tempted Eve in the garden) may have caused a certain disorder in the universe. So as a matter of pure speculation, it could be possible that the animals were created and lived long lives without death of any sort until Lucifer was cast down from heaven. Could such a scenario account for some of the catastrophic death seen in the geologic record? I do not know, but it might allow for death being the result of sin and death occurring before the fall, and would give Adam and Eve and understanding of the phrase “If you eat of the tree…you will surely die”.

Finally, at a relatively recent point in time as we might measure it, perhaps 10-20,000 years ago, the first human beings were created. (Gaps in the genealogies in the Old Testament suggest we cannot pin a date on specific individuals). The uniqueness of man is very clearly stated in scripture. I believe humans are unique. In spite of the assertions of geneticists that human and chimp DNA is strikingly similar and must point to common ancestry, I would agree with the counter argument that similarities in various species may be evidence of common design as much as common ancestry. ID proponents also point to the massive amounts of information in so-called “junk” DNA that governs the construction of body parts to bolster the view that the similarities between humans and chimps are evidence of unique, though similar design, and not common ancestry.

At the completion of creation, supernatural activity would be complete, natural law would also be complete, save for the curse. Natural law by that time would have been settled, the constants of space and time, matter and energy would have become essentially fixed. The rebellion of Adam and Eve, the refusal to be creatures in obedience to a good creator who created a good world led directly to a curse, one which "all creation groans" for its release from. The principle of sin and death as well is now fixed in our world, as much a part of natural law as gravity.

Am I an expert in any of this? Not at all. This is a personal viewpoint based on varied lines of reasoning from starting points that are sometimes quite distant from the creation/evolution controversy. I trust scripture for a variety of reasons, some having little to do with science/faith questions. I have no idea when the most distant star was created. But I do believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures, I also believe sin introduced both physical and spiritual death into our world, as did Augustine.

To believe otherwise would be, in my mind, to believe a different form of Christianity altogether. Paul said that if Christ was not raised then our faith was in vain and we were to be the most pitied of all men. His suggestion was that a supernatural event, the resurrection from the grave of a God/man was the central fact of the universe, an event that is simply not tied to natural law. He connected that resurrection of the “second Adam” to the death of the first Adam. Our eternal life is linked to Christ's physical death and resurrection just as surely as our predicament is linked to the physical, spiritual and eternal death that resulted from Adam's sin. It was central to Paul’s theology and to Augustine’s.

The point is simply this: Creation, like any other miracle in scripture, cannot be fully explained in terms of natural law. It is by definition a supernatural event just as the virgin birth, the resurrection and ascension are events “beyond nature”. The error theistic evolution makes lies precisely there. Theistic evolutionists attempt to utilize natural law to explain supernatural events in the distant past and sacrifice the fairly plain meaning of Genesis 2-11 on the altar of naturalism in the process. What is left is a Christianity that no longer has any coherent answer to the question of evil, death and suffering. What is left is a mere shell of the Christianity that Augustine clearly believed in. And to use selective quotes from Augustine to sell their viewpoint is false and dishonest.

Misquoting Augustine Part 4

2009-12-28T08:18:00.002-06:00

Before I get to a personal conclusion regarding Genesis, a thought occurs to me in regard to the origins debate.

Is it possible that there is confusion in the muddled idea of science that exists in the public consciousness, a confusion that extends into the science acedemy, science classroom, the literature, about what the limits of science are?

Everyone agrees, whether naturalist, creationist, ID advocate or theistic evolutionist, that science rightly studies phenomena in the natural realm - physical objects, measurable forces, detectable energy - all in accordance with natural law. Where the problem lies is not with science. It is a straw man to say ID or creationism rejects science. What opponents of naturalism reject is not science but the inferences made as a result of certain assumptions.

A very crude illustration will have to suffice. Suppose I am a food chemist and I arrive at my desk to find a chocolate cake. It is very much up my alley as a food chemist to have the tools to determine what components make up that cake. I may after a few hours of investigation be able to determine with a high degree of accuracy what the ingredients were - how many eggs were used, how much sugar, chocolate, flour is in the cake, what kind of frosting was used. I may even be able to determine if the cake used a store-bought mix or was baked from scratch and the approximate time of its baking. But it is not likely, apart from some other form of information from some other source, that I will be able to determine from the physical evidence in front of me who baked the cake. Nor can the makeup of the chemicals and physical components tell me why the cake was baked.

I might infer that a co-worker knew it was my birthday, but that is not a conclusion based on the ingredients of the cake. I might guess that the co-worker who made the cake is a particular lady who is addicted to the Food Network and loves chocolate. I might guess any number of things and might have good reason for preferring one solution to the mystery over another, but the ingredients of the cake in and of themselves would not be enough to lead me to a conclusion apart from other evidence beyond those ingredients.

Origins science is in a similar way, an attempt to infer where we came from and why using physical data we can measure, manipulate and study. We can know that rocks contain certain chemical elements that have radioactive properties. We can know that living organisms are composed of proteins and water and that there is a genetic code that maps out the construction of organisms. But the physical facts cannot tell us the full story of origins. We need additonal information - and that information does not come from science or physical data.

Naturalists fill in the blanks using a particular set of assumptions about the nature of the universe. Natural processes alone explain most things, therefore it is reasonable to assume that natural processes can explain all things.

ID and creationism simply object that it is not a necessary axiom that all things can be explained purely in terms of natural law. So the inferences made from the same data at times suggest that natural processes alone are neither sufficient nor logical. They assert that no known processes produce an increase in complex, specified information, therefore it is a leap of logic to infer that natural processes can produce the genetic codes of a multitude of different organisms.

Both look at the same data, but come to different conclusions.

A naturalist and a creationist will look at the same volcanic rock, measure it's content of various minerals the same way and come to the exact same conclusions about the hard facts of what the rock is. They will not infer the same origin of the rock. The naturalist will assume natural processes formed the rock, that a certain original state of the rock and a constant rate of radioactive decay will show that the rock is x number of years old. The creationist will object that the original amount of radioactive components is not known and that the amount of radioactive elements can be altered by outside (generally natural) forces, therefore the current makeup of the rock cannot pinpoint the date of its origin in the distant and unobservable past.

And the debate rages on. But it is not generally the hard facts of observable science that are in dispute. It is the conclusions inferred from the facts.

Those who hold to Theistic Evolution have usually adopted the methods and assumptions of the natualist. I would contend that stance is not entirely consistent with belief in a supernatural creator. And clearly, Augustine, who not only accepted the historicity of Adam, the fall, and the Genesis flood is not a good representative of a naturalist point of view.

But my main point here is simply that I am not in any way convinced that the events surrounding the formation of the universe can be accurately inferred from the study of present things, processes or events. In short, science can tell us what the universe is in a way that is factual, but it is beyond the realm of science to refer to inferences made about why, how and when as "facts". We simply don't have all the "outside" information. We know the ingredients of the cake from empirical study, but we do not know how, why and cannot even be certain about when.

Misquoting Augustine Part 3

2009-12-16T21:47:00.004-06:00

In the previous two posts I looked briefly at Augustine’s “Literal Meaning of Genesis” and its use by theistic evolutionists to bolster their case for a fairly figurative reading of Genesis. It should be stated clearly that the main question we are asking is “what is the most natural interpretation of Genesis?” We ask this particularly in the context of how Augustine understood Genesis some 1400 years before Darwin.

The point put forward by some advocates of theistic evolution is that even prior to Darwin, Augustine allowed for a fairly open interpretation of Genesis and discouraged Christians untrained in the sciences from connecting Genesis to scientific explanations. If those connections were proved to be false by the advance of science, we are told, Christianity would be discredited.

As we have seen, to some degree, Augustine did allow that in the description of the initial creation of light, expanse, heaven and earth, the text is difficult to interpret and as such it is difficult to link a phrase from the text to a natural corollary with any degree of certainty. But what Augustine did NOT say is that the text of Genesis from the completion of the initial creation forward was difficult to understand or that any of the events described were less than historical. The best reading of the text for Augustine was the plainest.

What TE advocates fail to mention is that Augustine believed in a 6000 year old earth, in the historicity of Adam and Eve, in the historicity of the fall into sin, in the direct cause-effect relationship of sin and death, and even in the historicity of the Genesis flood. In other words, Augustine’s understanding of the text was very clearly in the camp of most Young Earth Creationism and not at all in the camp of TE. (Origen, who allegorized most of the Old Testament might be a more likely early exegete to whom TE folk can appeal, but Augustine – no.)

Even the title of Book 12 Chapter 10 is telling: “Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past” Augustine here argues that secular records of the duration of certain kingdoms do not agree with each other, so he leans to the “sacred writings” of scripture, stating: “They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” The point here is not to say that Augustine was perfectly correct in stating a 6000 year age is demanded by the text. The point is that he understood from the text that the Earth was younger than the prevailing wisdom of his day. (YEC advocates today generally allow for up to 20,000 years, still a far cry from 4.6 billion.)

In Book 12 Chapter 21, titled “That There Was Created at First But One Individual, and that the Human Race Was Created in Him” Augustine makes it clear that the entire human race, from a plain reading of the Biblical text, descended from a single human individual. “And therefore God created only one single man …that by this means the unity of society and the bond of concord might be more effectually commended to him, men being bound together not only by similarity of nature, but by family affection. And indeed He did not even create the woman that was to be given him as his wife, as he created the man, but created her out of the man, that the whole human race might derive from one man.” Note that his argument includes the idea that the human race is unified in the connection to a single original parent. Eve was created from Adam, preserving this unity. He suggests that not only the detail of the single parent is important, but the meaning implied by the detail is equally important.

He continues this argument in Book 12 Chapter 27, “That the Whole Plenitude of the Human Race Was Embraced in the First Man, and that God There Saw the Portion of It Which Was to Be Honored and Rewarded, and that Which Was to Be Condemned and Punished”. He writes:

“…Among the terrestrial animals man was made by Him in His own image, and, for the reason I have given, was made one individual…And human nature has nothing more appropriate…than the remembrance of that first parent of us all, whom God was pleased to create alone, that all men might be derived from one, and that they might thus be admonished to preserve unity among their whole multitude.”

Again, there is value in the implication of the idea of a single set of parents. We are one race. To corrupt the unity of the race is destructive and that unity is grounded in the single parent we all share. If our ancestors are diverse, then our unity is difficult to assert.

The most critical issue in the minds of YEC advocates, not only as a matter of exegesis but as a plank in a way of understanding the meaning of life is the relationship of death to sin. Augustine is absolutely clear on this point. In Book 13 Chapter 1, “Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted” Augustine states that humans differ from angels. Angels are immortal even if they become corrupted. Humans who fall into corruption are condemned with mortality:

“…the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man …and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence— which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.”

Many TE advocates make a case that the death that is incurred as a result of sin is a “spiritual” death, separation from God. Physical death to them is a natural occurrence, necessary to evolutionary progress and attested to by long ages and fossil evidence. Therefore, it is wrong to tie physical death to the curse brought about by human rebellion through a “wooden” reading of Genesis. Augustine would not allow for such a view. In Book 13 Chapter 2 “Of that Death Which Can Affect an Immortal Soul, and of that to Which the Body is Subject” he writes:

“The death, then, of the soul takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the soul forsakes it. Therefore the death of both— that is, of the whole man— occurs when the soul, forsaken by God, forsakes the body…And this death of the whole man is followed by that which, on the authority of the divine oracles, we call the second death. This the Saviour referred to when He said, Fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)”

Augustine is quite clear that human rebellion leads not only to the second death, a spiritual and eternal separation from God which includes torment, but to physical death as the result of sin. This physical death, says Augustine, is a punishment and not a natural part of the created order. Even those who are “good”, those who are redeemed, still face this physical death as a consequence of general human rebellion. Death is never a “good” thing. And death is passed on from generation to generation.

Book 13 Chapter 3 “Whether Death, Which by the Sin of Our First Parents Has Passed Upon All Men, is the Punishment of Sin, Even to the Good”

“But a question not to be shirked arises: Whether in very truth death, which separates soul and body, is good to the good? For if it be, how has it come to pass that such a thing should be the punishment of sin? For the first men would not have suffered death had they not sinned. …Wherefore we must say that the first men were indeed so created, that if they had not sinned, they would not have experienced any kind of death; but that, having become sinners, they were so punished with death, that whatsoever sprang from their stock should also be punished with the same death.”

There is no way to read Augustine and reconcile him to the idea that death as not a penalty for sin in the way that TE champions would attempt to read scripture. Augustine in his day was dealing with a different set of challenges to the faith, philosophers who viewed the material world as evil and thus concluded that death, freeing the soul from the shackles of the body, is a good thing. Augustine insists that the body is good in its original state and not a burden or a prison, rather the corruption of the body is a burden and a natural consequence of rebellion against God. The separation of soul from body is a direct punishment for sin.

Book 13 Chapter 16.— “Concerning the Philosophers Who Think that the Separation of Soul and Body is Not Penal, Though Plato Represents the Supreme Deity as Promising to the Inferior Gods that They Shall Never Be Dismissed from Their Bodies.”

“But the philosophers against whom we are defending the city of God, that is, His Church seem to themselves to have good cause to deride us, because we say that the separation of the soul from the body is to be held as part of man's punishment. For they suppose that the blessedness of the soul then only is complete, when it is quite denuded of the body, and returns to God a pure and simple, and, as it were, naked soul.”

Augustine at this point argues not from scripture but from the contradictions such philosophers have with Plato himself, but his point remains. The body is good, death is a punishment for sin, and resurrection of the body is a component of the true faith.

Book 13 Chapter 23.— “What We are to Understand by the Animal and Spiritual Body; Or of Those Who Die in Adam, And of Those Who are Made Alive in Christ.”

Augustine takes Paul’s linking of Adam to Christ at face value, and makes the “principle” of death present tense, even though we may live physically for a time:

…And therefore the apostle does not say, The body indeed is doomed to die on account of sin, but he says, The body indeed is dead (present tense) because of sin. Then he adds, But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwells in you. Romans 8:10-11

And he makes a distinction between the first and second death, both of which are part of judgment on sin

…But the second death is not common to all, those being excepted who were called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Romans 8:28-29 Those the grace of God has, by a Mediator, delivered from the second death.

Augustine argues for the historicity of some of the more unusual characters in the Old Testament by connecting the Biblical record to the accounts of secular historians.

In Book 15 Chapter 9 “Of the Long Life and Greater Stature of the Antediluvians.”

“…And so, too, they do not believe that the size of men's bodies was larger then than now, though the most esteemed of their own poets, Virgil, asserts the same, when he speaks of that huge stone which had been fixed as a landmark, and which a strong man of those ancient times snatched up as he fought, and ran, and hurled, and cast it…thus declaring his opinion that the earth then produced mightier men.”

He speaks of actual remains of antediluvian beings, bones as a link to the past.

“…But the large size of the primitive human body is often proved to the incredulous by the exposure of sepulchres, either through the wear of time or the violence of torrents or some accident, and in which bones of incredible size have been found or have rolled out. I myself, along with some others, saw on the shore at Utica a man's molar tooth of such a size, that if it were cut down into teeth such as we have, a hundred, I fancy, could have been made out of it.”

He plainly states we should trust the biblical account, even though many in his day denied it

“…we are not on this account to withhold our faith from the sacred history, whose statements of past fact we are the more inexcusable in discrediting, as we see the accuracy of its prediction of what was future.”

Regarding the Genesis Flood, Augustine counts it as history, not mere “narrative” in Book 15 Chapter 27, titled: “Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.”

His argument here is critical to the position of the TE crowd, who wish to argue that one can retain the moral, ethical and spiritual meaning of the Genesis narratives while conceding their historicity. Augustine is crystal clear that it is wrong to separate the two. To read Genesis for mere fact and miss the deeper meaning is wrong. It is equally wrong to look for meaning while denying the historical truth.

“Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church.

“…And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities—the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.”

Without question, Augustine accepted the historicity of Genesis from the creation of Adam to the death of Joseph. His treatment of the days before Adam leaves room for a degree of interpretation about the method of creation, but not about its supernatural character.

The point is this. To use Augustine to bolster an approach to scripture that renders Genesis as a story compatible with naturalism and common descent is highly misleading. Those who do so need to fess up. Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis is very similar to the interpretation put forth by YEC and is nothing at all like the interpretation suggested by TE. Whether Augustine was right or wrong is a separate matter, but one cannot honestly suggest his understanding of the Biblical text could ever coincide with TE.

In addition, it cannot be argued that such a "literalism" regarding Genesis is merely an aberration that resulted from the modernist/fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century. Augustine is stating his view of the best interpretation of the text, 1200 years before Darwin and in contrast to those around him who argued for an older Earth and argued that death was a "good" and not a punishment for sin.

Those are Augustine's views. My own views, though just opinions of a layman, will follow.

Misquoting Augustine Part 2

2009-12-15T22:07:00.005-06:00

In part 1 I took a look at a particular quotation from Augustine’s Literal Meaning of Genesis (LMoG) used by theistic evolutionists to argue that it is unwise to read the Genesis creation account in a way that conflicts with current scientific consensus. Francis Collins' Biologos website makes Augustine appear to be a fairly prominent ally in a fairly flexible interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

While taken as a lone quotation, Augustine’s plea that “we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it” may indeed be a valid caution for all who seek to provide any scientific explanation for the fine details of Genesis 1. Theistic Evolutionists use this quote primarily as a rebuke to Young Earth Creationism, but often include in their sights the more “Old-Earth” views of folks like Hugh Ross and even the advocates of Intelligent Design who generally make no reference to Genesis at all. The goal of theistic evolutionists in quoting Augustine is primarily to convince Christians that Darwinism in toto is not incompatible with faith.

But those who quote Augustine in this way usually fail to mention Augustine’s views of the historicity of Adam, the historicity of the fall and the effects of the fall, which are far more central to a traditional position on questions of origins than the age of the earth or the precise mechanism of the initial creation of time, matter, space and energy. As we shall see later, Augustine would fully agree with a number of YEC views on topics pertaining to Genesis 3-11.

What is left out of the references to Augustine by McGrath, Collins, et al, includes a repudiation of his contemporary secular critics of the Biblical text - critics who supposed that Christians who are less in agreement with establishment science are uneducated bumpkins simply for not accepting the current scientific status quo. “But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained (by Christian exegetes) in so many senses, (literal, figurative, moral) critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances (the scriptural text) that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above.

Digging into that quote, we see that first he notes that most Christian exegetes are not wooden literalists. There are layers of meaning - literal, figurative or prophetic and moral - that are drawn from the text, meaning that is sophisticated and deep, meaning that goes beyond mere details to key truths that “nourish the soul”. This is very important to advocates of Younger Earth creationism. The questions of where death came from and how death is related to sin are not matters of stubborn literalism, enslavement to enlightenment rationalism or nitpicking about the meaning of a singular Hebrew word. This is a central question about the ultimate meaning of both life and faith. And Augustine compares the scientists of his day who mocked the various depths of meaning in the scriptures to hopping frogs who imagine they soar higher than birds!

To be fair, based on what Augustine has written in LMoG, it seems to me that he is simply saying that the method God used in the initial acts of the creation of time, space, light, energy, and of heaven and earth is not something we have a frame of reference for. Not only are land and sea, plants and animals created things, but light, time, and matter and energy are also created things. More to the point, while being created, they may not have been precisely the things we may think of them as being now. The intent of the Author of Genesis in describing these initial acts of creating light, water, earth and heaven is unclear simply because the text is just a bit beyond our scope of vision. What is partially formed light or partially constituted time?

Augustine seemed to believe that creation occurred in a single event and that the days of creation symbolically signify different aspects or phases of creation that are neither actual 24 hour periods nor long ages. Perhaps we could say that since context determines the meaning of words, we could allow there is no context quite like the first events of creation. Augustine seems to be open to the notion that creation of land, water, light, sky, stars and planets took place without relation to a defined period of time, but for Augustine, the best understanding of the text certainly does not imply long, long ages at all (see part 3). Augustine would likely avoid too firm a statement about the meaning of “day”, based primarily on the interpretive difficulties in the text itself, not based on a supposed conflict with current scientific ideas.

More importantly, theistic evolutionists don’t bother to mention a very pointed rebuke from Augustine to Christians who would place secular science above scripture: “But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn.”

What vivid language! The “learned” accounts of the universe found in “irreligious” views of the science of astronomy are attractive (to the weak) as a blossom, but in reality are a mere thorn! While the text of scripture appears unattractive in comparison to secular wisdom, it is in fact the wheat that nourishes and feeds. What a stunning rebuke! Might this describe the plight of so many young Christians in secular universities and Christian colleges who turn away from the account of Genesis after being exposed to a one-sided and virulently dogmatic naturalism! Might this also describe so many students at ostensibly Christian colleges who are taught what is essentially a baptized naturalism by Christian professors!

In fact, Augustine is rather staunch in his defense of the reliability of the scriptures in the face of scientific theories, stating: “When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt.

Read that carefully. Where science and scripture seem to conflict, Augustine insists that time and research will either 1)prove the science false or 2)Christians will hold that apparent science to be false, and he adds the words “without shadow of doubt.” Christians will hold to scripture.

It is assumed in this statement that scripture can be understood in most matters in its own right and may be found to be in conflict with the current views of secular science. Augustine is anticipating that secular science and Biblical revelation may well stand in conflict. When that happens, according to Augustine, the Christian should hold secular science to be false “without any shadow of doubt”.

So his caution to Christians in the LMoG is simple: On the one hand, we should not force the text to mean more than what it says and discredit the faith by presumptuous and poor exegesis. On the other we should not make the text mean less than what it says and use secular opinion to bend the meaning of the text. He simply insists that the intent of the author is the primary goal in interpreting the scripture.

“When we read the inspired books in the light of this wide variety of true doctrines which are drawn from a few words and founded on the firm basis of Catholic belief, let us choose that one which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. But if this is not clear, then at least we should choose an interpretation in keeping with the context of Scripture and in harmony with our faith.”

In short, Augustine admits that not everything in scripture is equally clear. Perhaps we do not know precisely what the author of Genesis meant when he writes that the Spirit was “hovering over the waters”. But those matters that are critical to the faith will be clear enough from the text itself. To interpret those passages, the context of scripture and the harmony with the basic tenets of the faith should be the guide – not the conclusions of secular science about events that no human could observe.

Hence, should we not conclude that Augustine would read Genesis 3 in light of Romans 5, for example, rather than in light of the “irreligious views of science”? This would be in stark contrast to theistic evolutionists who would read both Genesis 3 and Romans 5 in the context of naturalistic science. Augustine continues: “But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands. For it is one thing to fail to recognize the primary meaning of the writer, and another to depart from the norms of religious belief.

So, I take it that the “Literal Meaning of Genesis” may be rightly used to suggest that some aspects of any particular view of the origin of time, energy, matter and space should not force the text to say more than it says, primarily in the interpretation of the first few verses of Ch 1. The precise details of the origins of the universe, of the “heavens and earth”, are beyond our vision and the intent of the author of Genesis is not easily discerned. If the text says light was created before the sun, then perhaps “light” may legitimately mean something beyond a “normal” definition of the term. “Time” itself is may be a concept that is flexible because time as we know it was just in the process of being created. The laws of nature, assuming those laws are themselves created things, may not have operated in precisely the way they operate now. We should not be dogmatic about what we cannot see clearly from a few phrases in a single chapter of scripture. His warning should be heeded not only by YEC advocates, but by Old-Earth advocates and theistic evolutionists as well.

But the LMoG cannot honestly be used to imply that Augustine would endorse theistic evolution or anything of the sort. While we may not know the precise methods of ex nihilo creation, nothing in the LMoG suggests that for Augustine the fact of creation is in question or in particular that the events that occurred during or after the initial creation week were anything other than real, historical events. This is where the theistic evolutionists’ use of Augustine falls apart completely. His words are a caution to Christian expositors not to stretch the meaning beyond what the text requires, not a blank check to radically reinterpret the text of Genesis 1-11 in light of secular science or to read it in disregard of the testimony of both the Old and New Testament with respect to the historicity of Adam, Eve and the fall.

To unwrap Augustine’s views of the age of the Earth, of Adam and Eve, of the fall of man and its relation to physical death, his views of the Genesis flood and the tower of Babel, we have to turn from LM0G to his “City of God.”

Misquoting Augustine Part 1

2009-11-18T06:57:00.006-06:00

I am fascinated and often irritated with the mindset of many who support theistic evolution, the idea that God is somehow the force that drives naturalistic evolution. I do not believe science and scripture are incompatible but I do believe scientism and naturalism are incompatible with the supernatural theism that seems inextricably embedded in scripture. And there is the rub. Theistic evolutionists seem to accept, either implicitly or explicitly, a belief in naturalism. They accept, at least regarding origins, that there is a uniformity of natural causes and that all things related to origins can (and must) be explained in terms of natural processes we observe at present.

It seems to me that theistic evolution is a fool’s bargain where naturalism gets the whole farm and theism gets next to nothing in the wager. It also seems odd and exceedingly inconsistent for theistic evolutionists to state they believe in miraculous New Testament events like the resurrection and the virgin birth, but then limit discussions of origins to purely natural causes.

So I am particularly interested to read from various Theistic Evolutionists the assertion that Augustine’s small tract “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” provides an historical understanding of Genesis that supports a reading of the text in a way that is compatible with the whole gamut of modern Darwinian assertions including the common descent of man from lower life forms.

This view has been mentioned on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog by a fairly cordial scientist who goes by the blog handle RJS. It is a prominent link on the Biologos website founded by Francis Collins and is alluded to by Allister McGrath in a Christianity Today article from several months back. The suggestion is, in a nutshell, that Augustine, Aquinas, Origen and others allowed for a range of interpretations of the creation account, and Augustine in particular warned Christians not to pick a fight with science, because if our interpretation of Genesis is found to be in conflict with factual science, then our interpretation will discredit the faith. It is commonly asserted in this context that YEC views in particular are a recent and naïve development that grew out of the fundamentalist/modernist controversies of the early 20^th century but are not a normative reading of Genesis. It is usually the case that Intelligent Design is presented as almost as wrongheaded as YEC.

If it is true that ancient interpreters read Genesis as an allegorical story, it is a point I would consider, because I do believe our interpretation of scripture should be influenced by the great exegetes of the past. So I took it upon myself to actually read Augustine. I dare say, I think he is being seriously misrepresented or at least selectively quoted.

In reading through his “Literal Interpetation of Genesis” it is clear Augustine is making a case for humility in the reading of the account of the creation of the cosmos. Point for their side. But never does Augustine deny the historicity of the events of the creation of the earth nor the creation and the fall of man. And far more of the YEC case is dependent on the latter than the former.

First, Augustine alerts us to the reality that the author of Genesis can use terms that can mean things in more than one sense. He asks, for example, if the phrase “heaven and earth” is a literal or figurative term? It needs to be stated that Augustine believed scripture can and should have more than one sense, particularly the Old Testament. There were literal historical events – one meaning found in the literal sense. In the Old Testament, there was clearly a foreshadowing of the New Covenant, so the Old Testament had a prophetic sense in addition to the literal. There is also a moral sense, the precepts that are suggested by the text. But Augustine did not suggest that the literal sense should be ignored or explained away. Prophetic and moral meanings exist in addition to the literal, not in spite of it.

Says Augustine: “…we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given.” All these senses are equally important to Augustine, not at the expense of the literal.

Augustine also clearly thought parts of Genesis 1 were beyond easy interpretation. This difficulty was a feature of the text itself, not a concession to outside influences. The text was simply ambiguous in some, though not all, matters. In chapter 2 of the Literal Meaning of Genesis (hereafter LMoG) he ponders the meaning of “light”, the idea of imperfection in that which is initially formed. In ch. 9 he ponders the very meaning of time and its relation to the initial creation of light and the words “Let there be…” In ch. 10 he wrestles with the question of light being in existence on a “day” when the sun had not yet been created. So he alerts us that there is a real hermeneutical puzzle inherent in the text in that “light” might mean visible light or it might mean something else, since the sun and stars did not exist at the first mention of light.

In ch 13 he suggests the basic form of earth may have existed before the first creation day, (which could allow for some forms of a “gap” theory, where the time between the initial creation in Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the account from 1:2 forward is open to discussion.). “A further question, then, arises as to the time when God created these distinct forms and qualities of water and earth. No mention is made of this act in the six days. Hence let us suppose that God did this before any of the days began; for, before any mention of the first days,”

In all this, his modest point is simply that the intent of the author in the first few verses of Genesis is not precisely clear. There are difficulties within the text itself –seeming contradictions and unanswered questions. What is being described is something we have no real context from which to triangulate a precise meaning. And because the text itself is not easy to interpret, it may be unwise to tie the wording of the first few verses of Genesis to any scientific explanation of how specific early events of creation came to pass.

Hence the oft-quoted paragraph from McGrath, Collins, RJS:

“In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.”

Augustine then adds:

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Notice that Augustine says we should seek to conform our opinions to the scriptures rather than force the scriptures to conform to our understanding. Hmm. Sounds like Augustine is saying we should bow to the text – when its meaning is clear. He is also saying we should be cautious where scripture is unclear. But he is surely saying we should bow to the text.

But Collins and others mean by quoting the above two paragraphs that YEC advocates who attempt to find scientific support for a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 are making a mockery of the faith, because science has, in the view of Collins and RJS, proven beyond any question that the universe is very old and that all biological life descends from common ancestors. Their citing of Augustine is intended to lead questioning YEC believers away from the apparently indefensible pseudo-science of YEC (and ultimately ID) to their more enlightened view which is baptized naturalism and de facto Darwinism. They use Augustine to assert that it is quite permissible to read Genesis in a way that fully conforms with current Darwinian science.

But is that what Augustine meant to say? I think not. Part 2 will look at the quotes from LMoG that are conspicuously left out.

Origins – the first question

2009-09-12T11:31:00.003-05:00

Been reading and pondering and arguing a bit on the web regarding the steady shift among Christians toward either theistic evolution or some form of progressive creation. See in particular numerous posts on Jesus Creed regarding evolution. It seems more and more University educated Christians who may have come from fairly Bible centered backgrounds are abandoning not only young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism but even a broad view of Intelligent Design.

For the moment I won’t argue specific details regarding this or that specific element of the ID vs evolution debate, nor debate the meaning of specific phrases in Genesis 1-3, nor the necessary distinction that must be made between creationism and ID. What I will question is the assumption those Christians who make this concession to naturalism may have. That concession is that God used “natural laws” including natural selection as his method of creation. Here’s my main beef:

The “common-sense” reading of the text of scripture posits a Creator-God. Consider that and only that for a moment. We are told that God existed “in the beginning” or even before the beginning. We are told God created the heavens and the earth. We are told He is the “beginning and the end”, implying, at least, He is not bound by time. We are told he will one day destroy the world by fire and bring into existence a New Heaven and a New Earth. If all this is true, then time, space, and the laws of nature in no way are binding on God.

So then, it seems to follow that it is God who created the laws of nature; else, those laws would be higher than God. This seems a fundamental assumption of belief in a creator.

The second thought is this. We are presented in both the biblical text and the long history of Christian theology with a God who works miracles. Again focus on that thought.

This is a second fundamental point of the very definition of God in historic orthodox Christianity. By definition, miracles are events that are out of the ordinary, suspensions of the normal workings of nature. Changing water to wine bypasses the normal frame of time it takes to grow grapes, crush them, package them and allow the process of fermentation to work. The laws of nature as we know them would have to be superseded in the miraculous acts of a God who is above nature. Healing of a man who is blind or lame from birth is a bypassing of the normal path to healing, or at least an acceleration of it. Curing someone of leprosy by a touch is a manipulation of reality that goes beyond the laws of nature.

So, the laws of nature are laws which God can supersede at any time. The laws of nature do not bind God in any way in the past, present or future, in the New Testament miracles of Christ, the Old Testamen miracles of the Exodus, nor in the early chapters of Genesis. Again this is a fundamental implication of the very concept of a “creator-God”.

Put the two ideas together:

If this picture of a creator-God is accepted as a definition of the very term “God”, then to try to explain either a miracle or the acts of creation in terms of natural laws, to try to uncover “how God did it” in terms of natural law alone, is to miss the point entirely. He would obviously not need to follow the laws of nature to create the laws of nature. To reduce what is by definition the “miraculous” to a set of natural causes and effects is to deny the very concept of the miraculous. And to say that the miraculous cannot take place is to say that God is not God.

The very starting point of Christian faith, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things seen and unseen”, is a God who is outside of nature, who created nature, who is not bound by nature and who can at will supersede the laws of nature. This, it has always seemed to me, is the starting assumption of Christianity. God exists and created ALL THINGS.

But the starting assumption of naturalistic science is the assumption that all things must be explained according to natural causes and only natural causes. Christians who accept this definition of science either by choice or simply as a result of absorbing unexamined assumptions, who use naturalism to explain “how God created” seem to saw off the branch on which they sit as professed Christians. The initial tenet of theism, the most foundational of all theological truths is seemingly set aside by those who accept the full naturalistic explanation of origins and try to wrap Christianity around it. At best, God is somehow behind the big bang, but every other event in the history of the universe is assumed to be fully explainable by natural processes alone.

There is a caveat in that some suggest God is active in the laws of nature, so the supernatural is not completely dismissed, but the overall effect is still to insist that all we see can be explained in reference to natural law. Certainly, it may be theoretically possible that God “used” the mechanism of natural selection to “create”, but it seems to me that such a view also imprisons God in the straightjacket of “natural law”. Did God need to use natural processes? The answer should clearly be “no”. The follow up is “why then have you chosen to believe He did use only natural processes in reference to origins?”

The answer usually comes down to something like, “because to practice science requires that we limit ourselves to what can be observed in nature” or some other response that fails to answer the theological question. They have become beholden to the details and arguments of a “science” that is naturalistic by definition and a definition of science 180 degrees in opposition to the supernatural.

And here we reach an impasse. Since science is almost always defined in the last 50-150 years as 1) the study of natural phenomena, 2) explained in terms of natural law; it is asserted that no explanations that appeal to something other than natural law can be permitted in the sacred sphere of what is called “science”. Hence, ID, which is distinct from creationism precisely because it uses religious dogma neither as a starting point, a source of evidence nor even a necessary conclusion, suggests simply that natural law is insufficient to explain certain phenomena, therefore even Christian supporters of neo-Darwinian notions emphatically declare that ID is not science, or worse ID is merely “god of the gaps” creationism.

-------

One commonly stated reason for the closed definition of science is the assertion that once one appeals to something beyond nature as an explanation, that explanation is not falsifiable because no one can test whether the supernatural was in fact the cause. Such an allowance for something outside of nature would supposedly destroy science by appealing to things not testable by science.

This is a bit of a straw man, because the idea that an omnipotent God can supersede natural law in no way denies that natural law exists. Exceptions do not invalidate a rule, particularly when it was the One who authored the rule who effects the exception. Early scientists, most of whom were theists, believed in an orderly universe governed by natural law precisely because they believed that a God created the universe with purpose, order and that such a universe could be studied. They founded much of what we now call science by “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. Miraculous events on rare occasions may supersede natural laws as exceptions, but in no way obliterate them.

By the same token, it is often theists themselves who debunk superstitions and false claims of the miraculous. That which can be explained by trickery or slight of hand is willingly dismissed by the theist and exposed precisely because the theist believes the universe was created by an intelligence. The theist only accepts as "miracle" that which cannot be explained in reference to natural law. In fact, it is the very existence of natural law, “the way things normally work” that gives definition to that which would be considered miraculous. A virgin birth would not be a miracle unless there was a natural law that a virgin birth might supersede.

But does no one see that if the only explanations that can be offered for everything that exists are naturalistic explanations, then the central premise of naturalistic science can itself never be falsified? How does one verify that all things are explainable only in reference to natural law? No matter how reasonable such a premise may seem, one would need something akin to omniscience to verify the claim, and in the case of the science of origins, the events in dispute, events well beyond the reach of recorded history, are beyond the reach of observation.

Now I fully understand how secular scientists who may be atheist or agnostic would insist on purely naturalistic explanations. Such a view is at least logically consistent, even if ultimately unverifiable. Agnostics and atheists say that they see insufficient evidence to believe in a God and thus conclude the universe is best thought of in terms of naturalism. That is consistent.

But is it consistent for those who describe themselves as Christians, who believe that God is the Creator, who apparently accept the first assumption that God created all things, who usually accept the resurrection and often accept the virgin birth as examples of the miraculous, to then turn around and embrace a view that philosophically does not allow God to act outside of natural law or to perform creative miracles in the science of origins?

To do so, seems to me, is not only inconsistent, but serves in practical terms to give up the very first building block of the Christian faith, that there is a God who stands as creator and Lord over all creation. Such a person seems to say he believes in God as creator with one hand, but then he seems to take away all God’s power to miraculously create with the other. God is allowed to be the engineer behind all nature and the author of natural law, but He is bound up within the constraints of the natural law He created once the events are set in motion. It is to profess theism and believe theism completely irrelevant to the study of origins! I suppose deism might be the best synonym for theistic evolution and its various cousins.

I simply cannot accept such a view. If we believe that God can create an entire universe, it is not at all logical to deny that he can work within that universe, to raise Christ from the dead, to turn water to wine, to heal the blind, deaf and lame. Why, if we believe God is big enough to accomplish the big bang, and set billions of stars in motion, would we not believe that at least in theory, he could rain manna from heaven, part the water of the Red Sea? Is the possibility that God might judge humanity by a massive, even global flood and create human beings as unique individuals from the dust of the groud something to be excluded from the faith? How is it in the minds of these Christian advocates of naturalism that the creator God ceased to act as God during the very days of creation?

This is a fundamental question. So many have surrendered the meaning of the initial statement of Genesis, the gospel of John and the Nicene Creed and yet still profess to be Christians. I do not see a cogent, logical reason for such a stance. If one accepts naturalism without qualification, then agnosticism or deism is the logical position, not a wrapping of naturalism in the language of faith.

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Pt 4

2009-03-23T06:56:00.004-05:00

My final post on the Intelligent Design Network Statement of Objectives concerns the role one’s view of origins plays in shaping values.

The statement says:

E. A society’s view of its origins will ultimately impact its social behavior and the values it places upon certain behaviors. Institutional establishment of only one of two possible biases or assumptions with respect to origins can be expected to promote logically-consistent views regarding Religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implicit or explicit imposition of such views will offend many and restrict the freedom to embrace and promote alternative viewpoints.

That this is a reasonable truth is clear from the similar statements from those on the other side of the issue. Again quoting Humanist Manifesto I:

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.

I am repeating myself perhaps, but this is true and chilling. Nevermind that many object to this by saying lots of people who do not believe in God have moral standards. That begs the question. The question is where do moral standards that individuals hold come from? Is there a moral law that is part of the fabric of the universe in the same way that there are physical laws like gravity or inertia. Clearly, the writers of Humanist Manifesto I say there are no such universal values and their basis for making that claim is grounded in the “scientific” view of “nature” proposed in the modern era – undeniably Darwinian.

Humanist Manifesto 2 continues: Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow…Clearly implying that moral codes must change to fit differing times and cultures.

…Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction.

Ethics that are “autonomous” and “situational” have no basis in anything firm and lasting. Such ethics can be changed from right to left, from black to white, from east to west at any time and changed back again. What is right today may be wrong tomorrow and what is wrong today can be right tomorrow. This is another way of saying that moral values are arbitrary. As such, values are never final and are always imposed by someone on someone else.

…We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility.

One has to read between the lines a bit to fully translate those two lines. But given the above statements, it is a fair question to ask how “individual autonomy” can be consonant with “social responsibility” when the stated assertion that there are no “guaranteed” values makes the word “responsibility” meaningless. “Social responsibility” means nothing more than what the current social norms happen to be, which essentially puts “individual autonomy” in the position of being potentially completely at odds with the current arbitrary values of society. Oddly, if the values society chooses are not grounded in a higher law, then imposing those values arbitrarily is almost certain to do the things the manifesto decries by denigrating the individual and suppressing freedom. This is the usual effect of atheistic totalitarian regimes.

The issue of sexuality has to come into play:

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.

How is “moral education” possible if there are no cosmic guarantees of moral values? How is moral education possible if ethics are autonomous and situational? If moral values are autonomous, isn’t “moral education” merely a process of telling children and adults “choose your own morality?” What’s the point?

My point is simply this.

If one accepts the notion that “the cosmos is all there ever was and all there ever will be”, an idea implicit in the assumptions of naturalism, then assertions similar to those stated in Humanist Manifestos I and II naturally follow. It is impossible to assert a purely naturalistic universe without also altering moral viewpoints. Those who believe the universe was designed with a purpose generally tend to believe that purpose includes some moral laws alongside the physical laws. Those who believe the universe developed by natural cause and effect alone downplay purpose and in doing so, downplay the believe that values are lasting and part of the fabric of the universe. Teaching evolution through natural causes has clear and real implications for moral behavior. So it is not true to say that teaching evolution as “science” is neutral toward other aspects of education, particularly moral education.

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Pt 4

2009-02-23T20:29:00.003-06:00

The fourth point of the Intelligent Design Network statement of principles says:

D. Institutional insistence for either a non-refutable materialistic or a Teleological assumption compromises the integrity of good Origins Science. Non-refutable assumptions are counter to the inherent skepticism of Science. They frustrate a search for an inference to the best of multiple competing explanations. These assumptions convert the protected explanation into an explanation designed to fit a preconception. The Institutionally protected explanation then becomes the prevailing orthodoxy or dogma rather than a scientific explanation open to question.

The key words here are rather straightforward. “Insistence”, “Assumption” and “non-refutable”.

This gets to the heart of the Overton definition of science in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. Phrases like “in reference to natural law”, “explainable by natural law” suggest the assumption that all things can be explained by natural law. Where is the empirical proof that there is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained purely in reference to natural law? This position assumes the conclusion to its implied question.

How does one refute this assumption? Whenever ID or Creation proponents suggest that certain things cannot be explained by natural processes alone, the common response is that such a suggestion circumvents science by implying that a natural explanation will never be found. So as long as the mere possibility exists, no matter how remote, that some mechanism can be discovered to explain a particular problem, naturalists argue that such a mechanism inevitably WILL be found. Given enough time, the most remote improbability has to be possible.

ID suggests that in certain cases, the probabilities of natural processes alone producing complex structures are essentially zero. Chances are one to infinity. Naturalists respond in a number of ways, but always tend to insist that given enough time, natural process can explain most anything.

They are insistent that natural processes alone can be the only explanatory causes for what we currently see.

They assume this with no way of offering any empirical proof for this assumption.

There is no ultimate way to refute this claim, because it is not based on observation of events in the past.

Note that the IDNet proposal does not deny that some aspects of teleological assumptions are equally non-refutable. That is the whole point. Certain assumptions have to be made by both sides for the simple reason that human beings are not omniscient.

What is wrong with the current state of affairs is that the naturalists do not admit that 1. they operate from assumptions and 2. those assumptions cannot be proven nor refuted. So to insist on one set of assumptions and exclude others is simply unjustifiable.

The end result is that reasonable explanations of how certain pieces of the origins puzzle are excluded, harming the real purpose of origins science, which should be to seek the best explanation rather than the best naturalistic one. And millions of folks who suspect that the universe is not merely material are told they must adopt a materialist stance if they are to engage in “true science”.

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Part 3 .

2009-02-18T22:11:00.008-06:00

I’ve been pondering the general statement of objectives of the Intelligent Design Network intended to plead for objectivity and against the forced orthodoxy of naturalistic assumptions in the teaching of origins. The first two points dealt with the subjectivity of explaining the unobservable events of the distant past by making inferences from present processes and the insistence that those inferences be given the status of irrefutable fact. While those points are very well crafted, Item C is the part of the IDNet statement of that I find most critical.

C. Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact Religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations of origins support the central tenets of non-Theistic Religions, while the implications of Teleological explanations support the central tenets of Theistic Religions. Both Theistic and non-Theistic Religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.

This is a point I wish others in the debate would make and would argue in the courts. ID is routinely dismissed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is accused of being religion falsely clothed as science. So ID, to the secular establishment, is not permissible because it would violate the wall of separation between church and state. The implication of this portrayal is that ID forces a religious view where naturalistic views of origins do not. This is a completely false and absurd assertion.

The framers of the ID Net proposal are completely correct in asserting not only that both viewpoints have an unavoidable connection to religion, morality, ethics, but that the naturalistic viewpoint promotes religion as well, just religion of a non-theist stripe.

Consider Humanist Manifesto I, from 1933, which stated exactly this point very clearly:

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. …To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation.

The intent of Humanist Manifesto I was to establish a secular, non-theistic religion for the purpose of addressing the same questions religions traditionally deal with, specifically, “Where did we come from?”, “Is there purpose and meaning in existence?”, “What rules should govern behavior?”. The entire enterprise of naturalism is intricately in harmony with the “religion” of humanism. Its many tenets, from the Manifiesto, include:

…(humanists) regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

…man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.

Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious.

…there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom.

Manifesto II in 1973 went much further to define ethics and morality in decidedly non-theistic terms based on the conclusions of naturalism.

… science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context.

Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction.

It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.

The Second Manifesto also clearly stated the implications of naturalism for politics – a one-world-ish trend toward a global community.

We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.

To suggest that the inclusion of ID in public education, (which does not include the banning of the teaching of Darwin), is an unwarranted breach of the separation of church and state is rather dishonest when one considers the implications of teaching Darwin alone, banning ID and giving full intellectual and spiritual shelter to views that are self-identified as a secular religion. It is hypocritical, but hidden below the surface, because only “theistic” religions are associated with religion and only “natural laws” are allowed to be considered as discussible causes in “science”.

It is telling that the only concession proponents of ID would ask for is the simple allowance that some natural phenomena might not be fully explainable by natural law alone. That is all that is requested, and that proposition is resisted with vigor and venom. It must be understood that the particular details of ID arguments are less of concern to the naturalist than the mere suggestion that natural law may have its limits. Repeatedly it is the insistence that science must be limited to explanations dependent on Natural Law alone reveals the inherent bias against the very notion of the supernatural. It also gives the lie to the suggestion that naturalism is neutral toward religion. It is not.

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Part 2

2009-02-13T06:52:00.003-06:00

I started a series on a resource at IDNet which attempts to make a case for including ID as one acceptable theory of origins. ID is not creationism as it makes no connections whatever to the Genesis account either in its assumptions nor its conclusions. Nevertheless, ID has been tossed out of the public sphere by the courts on several occasions for failing to comply with the assumption that all things can be explained in terms of natural law alone.

The second point of the IDNet statement of objectives is:

B. The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of abductive2 reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of Historical Hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.

Again, it is helpful to break the statement down. Origins explanations use a form of abductive reasoning. According to the footnote:

…abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. Key word there is “likely”. We are talking about probabilities, not certainties. This point is missed and often obscured by the Darwinist side. No one disagrees that natural selection occurs. That is something that can be placed in the category of “fact”. At question is whether the inferences made regarding the power of natural selection to sufficiently explain massive transformations from the first cell to the human eye can also be categorized as “fact”.

Current scientific observations, the statement continues…

…lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation.

"Best current explanation". Such a statement ought to be acceptable even to evolutionists. They are always saying the findings of science are tentative and constantly under revision. Reading Judge Overton’s Arkansas decision, one central tenet of science is supposed to be “Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word.” But, even more to the point, in the case of events that occurred prior to recorded history, science’s conclusions can only be inferred from current data based on specific assumptions. The phrase “not compelled by experimental confirmation” is quite descriptive.

The IDNet statement does allow for experimental confirmation of theoretical possibilities.

Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of Historical Hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared.

Note again the words “plausibilities” and “historical hypotheses”. History is a great analogy. We know from archaeology that certain ancient cultures existed. We have confirmation of the existence of various individuals in each culture. Yet historians spend hours and hours arguing about why certain individuals did specific things or why certain events happened and about their significance.

No ancient areas of study have a fraction of the textual documentation that exists for the early Christian church, yet we still have historians arguing that Gnosticism was a legitimate “alternative” Christianity unfairly shoved aside by early church leaders and others arguing that Gnosticism was a greek heresy that had nothing in common with what the founders of Christianity actually taught. If we can’t settle debates about written history, how in the world can we say conclusions built from bone fragments and are beyond challenge?

The statement’s point here is that science is impoverished when the challenge of alternative plausibilities is censored. And the thing that makes ID implausible to many is simply the fact that ID does not assume naturalism.

While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.

There is an old Jewish Rabbinical proverb as I recall that says, “teach thy tongue to say ‘I do not know’”. Is there anything wrong with saying we don’t have a definitive answer about what happened 4.6 billion years ago? Is there anything wrong with saying, “IF” we start with assumption A and infer from data points B,C and D, then it is plausible that Z is the result, but that the initial premises cannot be verified? And conversely, if we start with assumption T and infer from data points B, C and D we may come to a radically different conclusion?

Of course ID has a set of assumptions as well – the key assumption being simply that natural phenomena may have an intelligent cause and not a random, materialistic one. Assumptions – starting points we all must have – should not be the basis for insisting on only a single conclusion and excluding all others. That ought to be a reasonable starting point. I find for those committed to Darwinism, even those who identify themselves as Christians, it is not.

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense

2009-02-04T17:26:00.005-06:00

Found a good source for Intelligent Design info at the Intelligent Design Network

Managing director John Calvert’s many documents on the site are some of the more readable and insightful I’ve seen. I am particularly interested in the “Statement of Objectives” IDNet sets out that are intended to get around the impasse between ID and Darwinism.

So I’d like to take some time to work through the main points. Here’s the first:

A. Origins Science is an inherently subjective and controversial historical Science. Because we have an incomplete understanding of life and the universe, there is bound to be controversy about origins. Origins Science is also controversial because scientific descriptions of origins seek to explain the cause of a series of singular unobserved events that occurred in the remote past that are often not reproducible under laboratory conditions or susceptible to direct observation. Explanations often amount to subjective historical narratives constructed from circumstantial evidence and analysis using inference, imagination, unproved assumptions, and information that is not intersubjectively Accessible.

This is a very well crafted point and I think it is a worthy task to break this statement down so that it is understood. The first statement is:
“we have an incomplete Understanding of life and the universe…”.

This ought to considered true be beyond discussion. It would be the height of arrogance and exceedingly naïve to assert that we have a “complete” understanding of life or the universe. One would think this obvious reality ought to give naturalists pause about confident assertions of “fact” regarding events that occurred 20 thousand to 4 billion years ago.

The statement continues:
"…because scientific descriptions of origins seek to explain the cause of a series of singular unobserved events that occurred in the remote past…"

Key words in this phrase are, “unobserved” and “remote past”. The conflict between evolution, design and religious creationism is not primarily about observable data in the present, it is about things that occurred long ago, before written records exist, before human beings recorded any observations about what did or did not happen. Regardless of one’s position on origins, we are not dealing with present tense observations, but inferential explanations about events that are beyond the reach of verification.

These are events…
"that are often not reproducible under laboratory conditions or susceptible to direct observation."

It should be obvious that events not reproducible and not subject to direct observation should not be given the status of irrefutable scientific fact. No matter how reasonable the inference from present observations to past events, an inference is still an inference. Explanations of how something might have occurred given certain constraints can be quite plausible. No argument there. But that plausibility is always bound to assumptions and numerous “if” statements. So to shift the cautious language from “might have” to “probably” to “definitely” to “without question” is stretching the matter. No matter how plausible the proposed explanation, plausibility is not the same as proof. And absolute proof of events that occurred in the distant past is not attainable.

"Explanations often amount to subjective historical narratives constructed from circumstantial evidence and analysis using inference, imagination, unproved assumptions, and information that is not intersubjectively accessible."

This one is probably most troubling to the evolutionist, for it asserts the greatest level of presumption. The point is that observable cases of present processes cannot be extended to a necessary conclusion that such a process is the only plausible explanation of all life on the planet.

At issue is the problem of assumptions. In this whole debate, unproved assumptions are often left unexamined or carefully sequestered from discussion, the key assumption of all, the elephant in the lab, is the assumption of naturalism itself, that all natural phenomena MUST be explained in terms of natural cause and effect governed by natural law. There is no reason for this assumption to rule the day. It is very possible to distinguish between phenomena that clearly are the result of natural cause and effect, phenomena that possibly could be the result of natural cause and effect and phenomena that are exceedingly unlikely to be explainable by natural cause and effect alone. Opening the door to design does not bring back an age of irrational superstition.

There is more to this statement, so on we go in future posts.

From the Bookstore...

2009-01-31T10:47:00.005-06:00

So we get a mailing from a local Christian bookstore. I leaf through it. It has some of the latest Christian music CDs, a big promo for the video release of a recent Christian film. Lots of knick-knacks related to valentines day and Valentines cards. There are a whole slew of books about marriage and, yes, sex. There is as section on finances. There is an autobiography from a famous athlete. Lots of decorative crosses, picture frames and a few pieces of jewelry. A biographical movie about a doctor. There are a number of Christian fiction entries, mostly in the "romance" category, a few devotionals and some self-help stuff for men. There are some kids videos, "devotionals" for teens and more CCM CDs. Add a couple of vids on biblical characters.

In 32 pages of ads, there are three bibles and one book by Lee Strobel on apologetics. Not a single serious work of theological weight, save for Strobel's.

Just wondering, what does that say about the state of American Evangelicals?

Origins – the first question

2009-01-29T21:54:00.001-06:00

Been reading and pondering and arguing a bit on the web regarding the steady shift among Christians toward either theistic evolution or some form of progressive creation. It seems more and more University educated Christians who may have come from fairly Bible centered backgrounds are abandoning not only young-earth creationism, but even a broad view of Intelligent Design.

For the moment I won’t argue specific details regarding this or that specific element of the ID vs evolution debate, nor debate the meaning of specific phrases in Genesis 1-3. What I will question is the assumption those Christians who make this concession may have. That concession is that God used “natural laws” including natural selection as his method of creation. Here’s my main beef:

The “common-sense” reading of the text of scripture posits a Creator-God. I don’t want to go beyond that point for the moment. We are told that God existed “in the beginning” or even before the beginning. We are told God created the heavens and the earth. We are told He is the “beginning and the end”, implying, at least, He is not bound by time. We are told he will one day destroy the world by fire and bring into existence a New Heaven and a New Earth. If all this is true, then time, space, and the laws of nature in no way are binding on God. God created the laws of nature; else, those laws would be higher than God. This seems a fundamental assumption of belief in a creator.

Additionally, we are presented in both the biblical text and the long history of Christian theology with a God who works miracles. Again stop with that thought. This is a second fundamental point of the very definition of God in Christianity. By definition, miracles are events that are out of the ordinary, suspensions of the normal workings of nature. Changing water to wine bypasses the normal frame of time it takes to grow grapes, crush them, package them and allow the process of fermentation to work. The laws of nature as we know them would have to be superseded in the miraculous acts of a God who is above nature. Healing of a man who is blind or lame from birth is a bypassing of the normal path to healing, or at least an acceleration of it. Curing someone of leprosy by a touch is a manipulation of reality that goes beyond the laws of nature. Again this is a fundamental implication of the very concept of a “creator-God”.

So the point is this: If this picture of a creator-God is accepted as a definition of the very term “God”, then to try to explain either a miracle or the acts of creation in terms of natural laws, to try to uncover “how God did it” in terms of natural law alone, is to miss the point. He would not need to follow the laws of nature to create the laws of nature. He would not need to because he would be the author of those laws and would be above them. To reduce what is by definition the “miraculous” to a set of natural causes and effects is to deny the very concept of the miraculous. And to say that a miracle could not take place is to say that God is not God.

The very starting point of Christian faith, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things seen and unseen”, is a God who is outside of nature, who created nature, who is not bound by nature and who can at will supersede the laws of nature. This is the starting assumption of Christianity. God exists and created ALL THINGS.

But the starting assumption of naturalistic science is the assumption that all things MUST be explained according to NATURAL causes and only natural causes. Christians who accept this definition and use naturalism to explain “how God created” seem to saw off the branch on which they sit as professed Christians. The initial tenet of theism is seemingly set aside by those who accept the full naturalistic explanation of origins and try to wrap Christianity around it. At best, God is somehow behind the big bang, but every other event in the history of the universe is assumed to be fully explainable by natural processes alone. It may be theoretically possible that God “used” the mechanism of natural selection to “create”, but it seems to me that such a view also imprisons God in the straightjacket of “natural law”. Did God “need” to use “natural processes”? The answer should clearly be “no”. The follow up is “why then have you chosen to believe He did use ONLY natural processes?” The answer usually comes down to something like, “because the science is irrefutable”. They have been convinced by the details and arguments of “science” that is naturalistic by definition.

And here we reach an impasse. Since science is almost always defined in the last 50-150 years as 1) the study of natural phenomena, 2) explained in terms of natural law, it is asserted that no explanations that do not appeal to natural law can be permitted.

The common reason for the closed definition is that once one appeals to something beyond nature as an explanation, that explanation is not falsifiable because no one can test whether the supernatural was in fact the cause. Such an allowance for something outside of nature would supposedly destroy science by appealing to things not testable by science. But does no one see that if the only explanations that can be offered for everything that exists are naturalistic explanations, then the central premise of naturalistic science can also never be falsified?

I fully understand how secular scientists who may be atheist or agnostic would insist on purely naturalistic explanations. That view is at least logically consistent. Agnostics and atheists say that they see insufficient evidence to believe in a God and thus conclude the universe is best thought of in terms of naturalism. That is consistent.

But is it consistent for those who describe themselves as Christians, who believe that God is the Creator, who apparently accept the first assumption that God created, to embrace a view that does not allow God to act outside of natural law? To do so, seems to me, is to in practical terms, give up the very first building block of the Christian faith, that there is a God who stands as creator and Lord over all creation. One may say he believes in God as creator with one hand, but then take away all God’s power to influence His creation with the other. It is to profess theism and believe theism irrelevant.

For if we believe that God can can create an entire universe, it is not at all logical to deny that he can work within that universe, to raise Christ from the dead, to turn water to wine, to heal the blind, deaf and lame. Why, if we believe God is big enough to accomplish the big bang, would we not believe that at least in theory, he could rain manna from heaven, part the water of the Red Sea, judge humanity by a massive flood and create human beings as unique individuals beginning with one man and one woman in a Middle Eastern garden? How did God cease to be God after the initial moment of creation?

It seems to me that this is a fundamental question. Yet so many have surrendered the initial statement of Genesis, the gospel of John and the Nicene Creed and yet still profess to be Christians. I do not see a cogent, logical reason for such a stance. If one accepts naturalism, then agnosticism is the logical position, not a wrapping of naturalism in the language of faith.

What Went Wrong...

2008-10-18T10:27:00.007-05:00

My last post, some weeks ago, lamented the end of a journey. I have been able to give some thought to that journey and have reached a few conclusions.

Several years ago, I started down a path inspired by Tom Oden's "Rebirth of Orthodoxy". I may have misunderstood a bit of what he was saying in that book, but here is what I thought was the central thesis:

The "God-breathed" scriptures are alone the final authority by virtue of their inspiration, but the history of orthodoxy is the history of exegesis, and as such is a path toward greater Christian unity.

As I understood Oden, tradition has great value as a guide to the interpretation of scripture, but scripture remains the objective source of Christian truth. Whatever authority is given to tradition is secondary and derivitive and must be rooted in the Biblical text.

I saw in the Anglican doctrinal statement, the 39 Articles of Religion, a beautiful balance of absolute commitment to scripture as the final authority with respect for the history of how the church has understood scripture. Traditon, if one reads the articles in a normative fashion, is never allowed to assert as "necessary for salvation" anything that is outside the limiting boundaries of the Biblical text. This is why I chose one particular path and rejected others. I was never quite willing to reconsider Rome or follow other evangelicals to Eastern Orthodoxy because my evangelical commitment to the authority of scripture would not allow it, no matter how much I respected aspects of the early church that seemed compatible with either. For both Catholics and Orthodox, tradition plays a role that in some way subordinates the written Biblical text. The 39 Articles clearly insisted that whatever role the creeds, the liturgy and tradition may play, the source and limit is always the writte Word.

But the Anglo-Catholic influences, present in Anglicanism since the Reformation and increasingly prevalent since the days of the Tractarian movement, seems to have introduced an understanding of the role of tradition that goes "beyond what is written". Nineteenth century polemicists like J.C. Ryle were harshly critical of the "ritualism" introduced by Pusey, Newman and others, practices which had a place in the history of Christianity, but did not have a clear warrant in the text of scripture. The use of vestments, candles, incense, particular arrangement of church furniture all came under scrutiny as the excesses of the "traditions of men".

It has been suggested to me that much of this is harmless - that all Christian factions have their pet "traditions". In fact, it is suggested that some "tradition" is desirable. One thinks, for example of D. James Kennedy preaching in his scholar's robe, a tradition not practiced by Rick Warren or Mark Driscoll. Isn't such a "tradition" unbiblical? But isn't it a harmless and potentially useful tradition that actually suggests a sense of respect for the authority of the pastor and reverence for the sanctuary?

Here is where a distinction must be made. The Reformers' main critique of the medieval church was not merely that extra-biblical traditons had become excessive, but that those traditions had obscured and distorted the gospel itself. On the one hand, what a minister wears may or may not be a paricularly vital issue. On the other, if the wearing of a particular garment suggests a view of soteriology, of how one is rescued from sin, that is substantially contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, then the garments become a point of contention.

At a certain point, tradition ceases to be the preservation of apostolic teaching - an agreed upon understanding of the essential faith taught by the apostles and instead becomes an addition to the apostolic teaching, or a taking away from it. This was the great sin of the pharisees. Those who advocate for tradition as the final authority (usually insisting that all truth is "interpreted" truth and that "private judgment" is itself an authoritative tradition) need to recall the historical drift that occurred prior to Christ's first coming. The "traditions of the elders", 1400 years of purportedly "preserving" the law of Moses, was instead, according to Jesus, at times a "nullifying" of the laws of God in favor of the traditions of men. Likewise Paul repeatedly battled with those whose "interpretations" of the Old Testament texts missed the essential meaning altogether. The "interpretation" that circumcision was a "work" that one did as part of one's justification before God rather than a symbol of God's covenant was for Paul a matter of eternal salvation or damnation.

In the end, two issues remained that I could never compromise.

The first was the finished work of Christ. I don't have any great aversion to many aspects of the "high church" aesthetic. There is beauty in stained glass, in great architecture, in judicious use of candles, banners, and liturgical forms. None of these things in themselves get in the way of the essentials of the gospel (though Ryle was quite opposed to candles on Altars). In fact they do, for many, promote a sense of reverence and "otherliness", a refuge from the relentless drumbeat of secularisation.

But as I have documented elsewhere, particular elements of liturgical practice, subtle infiltrations, remnants of medieval theology, revived in the ritualist movement of the 19th century and slowly spreading throughout segments of Anglicanism became stumbling blocks I could neither avoid nor move. And the central stumbling block was the subtle view that in some way, Christ's sacrifice is not a "finished work", but is an ongoing, eternally "present" event that we participate in whenever we eat and drink the "true" body and blood of Christ.

Hebrews 10:12-14 is abundantly clear, particularly in the context of the whole book.

But when this priest (Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

There is no ongoing "present tense" sacrifice. His work is finished. He remains seated "since that time". And this is where the "traditions" of particular priestly robes, particular liturgical phrases, specific gestures obscures an element of the gospel that is absolutely critical. Any tradition that suggests that the communion table is an offering of Christ to the father for the remission of sins or a mystical re-presenting of an ongoing perpetual sacrifice was to the Reformers, including the English Reformers, blasphemous. "It is finished". Or as Romans 8:1 puts it, "There is therefore NOW, NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jesus."

I cannot emphasize enough how relieved I have been to be out from under that cloud again.

The second issue is simply the authority of scripture. I do not care particularly about all the emphasis placed by either Catholics and Orthodox on the one hand or by postmodern "post-conservatives" on the other on the notion that scripture must be "interpreted". Usually those who emphasize the "interpretation" do so to assert that it is the interpretation that is authoritative and not the text.

I remain committed to a belief that God has created a world that is objectively knowable. I remain committed to belief in the correspondence of truth to reality. As such I simply cannot relinquish a belief that human beings can know the truths God intended for us to know sufficiently (though never perfectly) by the careful reading of the written Word. If scripture cannot stand over tradition in a way that regulates and corrects it, then all sense of scripture being "authoritative" is meaningless. It cannot be a "norming norm" unless the words on the page have objective meaning. If all truth is "interpreted" truth, then it is the interpretation of scripture that is authoritative and not the scripture itself. Scripture then has no authority, all authority rests in the church.

Once it became clear that the anglo-catholicizing tendencies of certain segments of Anglicanism were going to wrest power away from the text and place increasing amounts of authority in the "the church", I knew I was no longer in the place I thought I had gone.

Which leaves me with a question. Is there any hope for the goal I once sought, that of greater unity among Christians in a fragmented, pluralistic and chaotic age?

I don't know if I have a solid answer, but I can say this. If there is hope for unity among Christians it is absolutely dependent on asserting the authority of Scripture. If we are arguing about the meaning of the text, there is hope. If we are arguing about matters that are not found in the text, not found in the "God-Breathed" testimony of the apostles themselves, but only in the habits and traditions of later generations, then there is no hope for unity.

For me, it is the authority of scripture and the finished work of Christ that are non-negotiable. Unity that forsakes those essenials is not worth having.

The End of a Journey

2008-06-20T17:18:00.007-05:00

Three years ago I waded into the via media of Anglicanism. When I searched for a "middle way" I was attracted to Anglicanism for one primary reason - the Anglican Statement of faith known as the Thirty-Nine Articles. I was disillusioned with the fragmentation of the evangelical movement and burned out from a series of difficult congregational church situations.

I wanted the doctrinal stability of the creed and the tangible experience of weekly celebration of the Lord's supper. My desire for a connection to the history of the church in the creeds, in a view of baptism and the Lord's Supper as more than just symbols found a worthy statement of faith - the 39 Articles of Religion. I saw in "Global South" influenced Anglicanism a respect for the history of the faith that I hoped would mitigate some of the conflict over interpretations of scripture without losing sight of the Reformation principle that it is the Scripture and not the church that is the final authority.

In the 39 articles I found the following things:

A firm commitment to the sufficiency of scripture - Article 6

That salvation is by faith alone - Article 11

That the church of history is fallible and has erred - Article 19

That the church is under the authority of scripture and not above it - Article 20

That the Roman notion of Purgatory is condemned as false - Article 21

That there are two sacraments, not seven - Article 25

That sacraments are effective only when received worthily and in faith - Article 25

That Christ is received in the Eucharist only when received worthily and in faith - Article 28

That Transubstantiation is condemned as "repugnant to the scriptures" - Article 28

That Christ is received in the Eucharist only an a heavenly and spiritual manner - Article 28

That there is only one offering of Christ "finished on the cross" - Article 31

That the Catholic notion of the Sacrifices of masses are "blasphemous fables" - Article 31

Needless to say, my comfort level in Anglicanism was primarily related to a belief that Evangelical Anglicans held firmly to these beliefs as written and as read plainly in a document of the Reformation era. Though there were a few things in Anglican expression I was not always comfortable with, I remained committed to the path I had chosen as the best path for the 21st century. A truly middle way. A way to work toward a 21st century Christianity that would speak with one voice - that of scripture - and not with the multitude of voices of denominational wrangling.

But in the last year, though associated with individuals I believe are sincere and believe they are doing what is right and in accordance with their own understanding of Anglican belief, I have been forced to ask myself if I can support, participate in or endorse the following:

-The statement, in response to a doctrinal concern, that the 39 Articles are "not a statement of faith" and are "not to be read according to the intent of the framers".

-That the sacraments are effective "ex opere operato" - by the work that is worked.

-That in Baptism, infants are regenerated through the sacrament and are assumed to be Christians unless they later reject their faith.

-That Paedocommunion, the giving of the sacramental bread and wine to small children is acceptable Anglican practice.

-That Confirmation is a sacrament.

-That certain Anglo-Catholic beliefs need to be considered to be "within the bounds" of authentic Anglicanism. These would, it seems, need to include:
-Eucharistic adoration
-Prayers for the dead
-Prayers to the virgin Mary

-I have had quoted to me the statement of John Henry Newman that the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is not the same as the "Sacrifices of masses" and so the "sacrifice of the mass" is at least allowable and not in conflict with the 39 Articles.

-And most importantly, in the context of all the above, I am faced with a fuller understanding of the following liturgical series of events in accordance with the 1979 Episcopal Liturgy, used by a large segment of Evangelical Anglicanism:

1. We offer to God gifts of bread and wine
2. There is a prayer for the Holy Spirit to "sanctify" the gifts "to be the body and blood of Christ".
3. At the breaking of the bread, the proclamation is made "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us".
... in short, there is a offering of Christ to the father strongly implied in the liturgy, a conclusion supported by 150 years of Anglo-Catholic influence. Whatever individuals in the Anglican church may or may not believe, this liturgy is clearly intended to teach Eucharistic sacrifice. (No one believes priests "re-sacrifice" Christ - the difficulty here is that Christ's work as high priest and victim are presented as ongoing and that the Eucharist is an "offering" of Christ to the Father united with his ongoing work. It flatly contradicts, in my mind, Hebrews 10 and the intent of the 39 Articles).

Needless to say, I have felt a bit of dissonance. For a number of months I have tried, wishing not to be divisive or too obnoxious, to probe into the question of how these forms of expression are consistent with the 39 Articles. The answers given, though impassioned and sincere, simply have not satisfied. And so I reach a crisis of conscience.

In my pleas over many months to remain true to the intent and language of the 39 Articles as a statement of the English Reformation, to simply be clear and not ambiguous in the expression of the theology of the 39 Articles, not one concession to the Evangelical Protestant sentiment was won with respect to liturgical expression.

It is not that I believe my fellow church members are being false or dishonest. I am told it is not "Romanism" they seek to hold to, but the faith of the undivided church of the early centuries. That is perhaps a legitimate perspective. But it is not in any cogent linguistic sense compatible with the 39 Articles on the points I mention above. They see no conflict - I see no possible agreement between the practices adopted and the language of the articles.

I have come to think it is just the nature of Anglicanism to state doctrine in a way that will allow for multiple interpretations. It occurs to me that no legal document or contract could ever be enforced if each and every word can have multiple and ill-defined meanings. But Anglicans believe, apparently, that ecumenical unity can be best achieved by stating doctrine in a way that gives a lot of leeway. The 39 Articles, in the end, mean whatever particular Anglican leaders want them to mean, and Anglicans will be quite content ignoring the linguistic contradictions.

I don't know what will come of GAFCON for Anglicans. I hear many things I tend to think are positive, yet the first document to come forth The Way, The Truth and the Life, though speaking highly of the 39 Articles, and the authority of scripture, endorses paedocommunion. (I find that hard to square with "right reception" of the sacraments "by faith" or the 1662 BCP rite of confirmation, which indicates no one is to be admitted to communion until of sufficient age to recite the creed, Lord's Prayer and Commandments.)

My expectation is that Evangelical Anglicans will make statements in support of the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and then will turn around and "make room for" Anglo-Catholics who will interpret nearly every word of those documents to mean something else. Perhaps odd alliances are needed to defeat the heretical teachings of Spong and Robinson, but such alliances do not inspire my confidence.

So with sadness, a sense of loss, and a sense the three years of my life have been spent running in circles in a doctrinal fog, I have come to this conclusion.

Anglicanism is not the answer I sought.

I can't support a set of doctrines I can't define, a set of doctrines with multiple meanings. And most importantly - I can't in good conscience endorse a communion liturgy and theology that purports to offer Christ's sacrifice again and again to the father - no matter what linguistic, metaphysical and mystical explanations are offered in support of this bending of scripture.

I have to move on.

Maybe I'll be cast as a divisive individual. I don't know how to balance the Scriptures exhortation to hold fast to sound doctrine with the admonition to seek unity. I keep finding those two things at odds. If I am cast as a pharisee, too concerned with cognitive propositional truth - so be it. I cannot live with the cognitive dissonance of two different theologies both being presented with a pretense of being compatible.

All I know is that the dissonance is not something I can live with.

Defending Obama by Smearing Your Dad

2008-03-22T07:19:00.003-05:00

Frank Schaeffer seems hell bent on not only cutting all ties to conservative evangelicals but seems determined to stab the them in the heart, being not the least bit ashamed to stomp on his father's grave to do so.

Frank writes a blog for the Huffington Post, the same site that Fox News tried to confront over comments rejoicing over things like the cancer of Tony Snow. Frank recently defended Barack Obama over the firestorm of his association with Pastor Jeremiah Wright. He has every right to support Obama if he wishes, but the gist of his defense is rather incendiary.

Obama is in trouble for a 20-year association with a pastor whose theology identifies the gospel with liberation from white supremacy. Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been associated with the theology of James Cone, a theology that includes notions such as "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.

... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

Basically, as World Magazine and countless other news sources have reported, "Wright has described America as 'the #1 killer in the world' and Americans as people who 'believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.' He also has said, 'We started the AIDS virus,' and, 'We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty.'"

Obama's efforts to defend himself have been given enough ink. But Frank Schaeffer defends Obama and Rev. Wright by in essence saying there is really no difference between Wright's energized preaching and the statements of many white preachers calling down judgment on America for other sins, such as abortion or redefining marriage. And he more or less says his dad was one of the prime examples of such incendiary rhetoric.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild.

Mild? We started the AIDs virus is mild? Really? Hmm.

To make his point, Frank quotes his father's late book A Christian Manifesto apparently trying to link his dad to some sort of movement toward a violent overthrow of the government.

"Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience: If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable."

Francis Schaeffer's statements were quite measured. There is a moral law that stands above all human law. When human laws are unjust, the duty of the citizen is to use every normal, non-violent means possible to stand for justice. When any human ruler repeatedly refuses to abandon practices that are life and death issues, it may be the moral thing to do to use force. Such force, as a last resort would need to accout for additional moral principles similar to just war theory, measured, appropriate force that minimizes damage and avoids harm of the innocent. These ideas are not out of the mainstream. Presumably Frank has heard of the Revolutionary War and the Boston Tea Party.

Frank quotes his dad again, a quote which illustrates my point better than his:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

Let's clear the air here. Pro-lifers, including Francis Schaeffer and a guy who used to be known as Franky Schaeffer, considered abortion to be state-sanctioned murder of 1.5 million human beings a year. This was not a small issue of mere political disagreement. This is, in fact, a life-death issue. It was equated to the extermination of at least six million Jews by a racist dictator. One would think those who are concerned about race would see a connection. As relates to Rev. Wrights concerns, it should be noted that pro-life people made a direct correlation between the Supreme Court's illogical decree that the unborn were not "persons" with an earlier Court decision that blacks were not fully "persons", thus allowing state-sanctioned slavery. Such injustice led to actions of civil disobedience, such as harboring runaways slaves and even force. Presumbably Frank has also heard of the Civil War. So we're talking here about white evangelical conservatives agreeing with blacks that slavery was wrong, that government complicity in slavery was wrong and that a horrible war that was partially the result of that conflict was justifiable.

In short, if there was a situation in this country where blacks were being rounded up and exterminated, many of those white preachers would likely be taking up arms to defend them. True, many, like the German populace who looked the other way during the holocaust would not, many would.

So I find Franks following comment rather bizzarre:

Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason.

I beg to differ. Black preachers have used words similar to Francis Schaeffer's words and not been castigated by the right. Black polititicians as well. There is no problem whatsoever with any preacher decrying the sins of a nation and few conservative evangelicals I know are the least bit troubled with condemnations of racism, lamentations over our participation in slavery, lack of concern over the plight of people in Rwanda or Darfur.

What gets Obama in trouble is that Wright said things that are not merely decrying sin and calling for repentance, not merely a warning that sin can lead to judgment, but seeming to desire that ills befall America based on accusations that are untrue.

No religious right leader has suggeted the U.S. invented aids as an act of genocide. Powerline Powerline posted a radio interview in which Obama "was unwilling to distance himself from Wright's most irrational and noxious claims, including the ridiculous assertion that the United States government created the AIDS virus in a laboratory to kill African Americans. Instead of denouncing such ridiculous claims, he tap-danced around Rev. Wright's 'narrative.'"

Did Francis Schaeffer do something equivalent to publishing a Hamas terrorist manifesto, sanitized of references to Hamas, defending terrorism as a legitimate form of resistance on a church website? Is there any evidence Francis Schaeffer or any other significant religious right preacher equated civil disobedience with terrorism? Comparing a terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence? Blowing up non-military targets and civilians as groups like Hamas are prone to do? Just where in Schaeffer's "Christian Manifesto" is there any endorsement of terrorism? Franks words were: "By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild." Really?

There is a qualitative difference between saying, as many preachers have done, that God will hold a nation accountable for its sins and saying as Jeremiah Wright has said "God damn America!"

Barack Obama may not be Jeremiah Wright. But if he cannot clarify where he differs from Wright on issues such as terroist tactics and killing the white man's God, then I think he will have difficulty portraying himself as a uniter on issues of race.

And there is a difference between taking a view of things that differs from one's father and spitting on his grave.

Somebody Who Understands Schaeffer

2008-03-16T13:07:00.002-05:00

Few people I speak to have read significantly from Francis Schaeffer. Many who have mistakenly critique him as a clone of his mentor Cornelius Van Til, or a populist who got too involved with conservative politics. In light of his son's disturbing attacks on him in his novels and most recent book, which I refuse to even name, I found the following article by
Christopher Tinker and Melvin Tinker very refreshing. These guys actually understand what Schaeffer was trying to do and why it remains significant and relevant.

Fifty Years On: The Legacy of Francis Schaeffer - An Apologetic for Post-Moderns not only summarizes Schaeffer well, it points out why the collective provocations of Tony Jones, Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt are so distressing.

They state regarding Schaeffer's most basic point about modernism "‘Rationality and faith are totally out of contact with each other.’ This is where modern man was left, in a state of despair. He could understand nature (lower storey) as a closed system rationalistically, but meaning (upper storey), in terms of purpose and significance, were unattainable and continued to elude him. The only way in which meaning could be found was to look to the upper storey where all rationality must be abandoned."

In other words, modernism was left saying that we could have objective knowledge about the material world, but the spiritual world was beyond science and reason. So anything related to the spirit, such as meaning, purpose, love, significance, had to be completely separated from the category called "knowledge". God may exist, but we can know nothing of him. For all practical purposes, all spiritual truth is unattainable if it exists at all.

Schaeffer predicted this utter despair over finding any universal spiritual truth could not be tolerated. He predicted instead that men, through a blind "leap of faith" into mysticism, would embrace spiritual ideas through non-rational means: contentless mysticism. Such an attempt would also fail. The logical end result is skepticism about reason, not only in regard to the supernatural realm, but skepticism about reason in regard to the natural realm. All knowledge would be challenged.

The writers continue "Post-modernism is in many ways the bastard child of modernism. The claim of the modern age was that reason was the answer to all things; that given the right premises and right methods true knowledge was attainable. Doubt was to be extended to anything that could not be verified or falsified. The post-modernist takes this a stage further and asks; why should ‘reason’ be given immunity from doubt? The result is either solipsism or epistemological anarchism. Post-modernism, then, is the fallout of the despair that Schaeffer pointed to in his analysis of Western thought."

I have argued many times on this blog that what we are seeing in the postmodern age is exactly what Schaeffer would have predicted - a rejection of the very notion of truth. An unfortunately, this is what many Emergents seem to wish to embrace as a good thing.

Schaeffer's answer was that it is the propositional revelation of scripture, understood by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, that enabled a connection to be made between the upper and lower storeys. We know truth about God, not because we started from scratch and reasoned our way to the heavens, but because God condescended to communicate to us in our own language, verifying his revelation with signs and a record of eyewitness testimony. Emergent and postconservative rejection of propositional truth is an embracing of the very despair Schaeffer sought to minister to.

The writers conclude: "If Schaeffer were alive today, he would no doubt continue to argue that Evangelicals should not lose their nerve on the question of ‘true truth’. This is crucial if we are not to sell out to a form of relativist pluralism which sees ‘evangelical truth’ alongside a range of other ‘truths’."

This is why the "emergent conversation" is so suicidal to me. It assumes away the very uniqueness of scripture by imprisoning all language and thought in subjective categories of "culture" and "interpretation" and suggests that though truth may exist in "objective" things, the human mind can never know such truths with any significant level of confidence.

How we need someone to take up Francis Schaeffer's mantle again. I fear greatly for our culture. "Epistemological anarchism" is exactly where we seem to be headed.

The Three Faces of Anglicanism - The Revisionists

2008-03-08T14:44:00.000-06:00

I have been trying my darndest to figure out what best describes the essentials of Anglicanism. I fear, from time to time, that what defines Anglicanism is the notion of "peace at all costs". Unity at the expense of truth. As a result there appear to me to be three almost entirely incompatable belief systems in the Church of England and its daughter organizations that somehow coexist organically, but present a confusing picture to the world.

I have written before about the "revisionist" wing of the Anglican Communion. I won't rehearse it all here, instead, just a few notes on the historical development, with a bit more focus on the 39 Articles.

JI Packer speaks of the 39 Articles in these terms. They come to the Anglican church:

"... as prior judgements, time-honoured judgements, on specific issues relating to the faith of Christ, as set forth in the Scriptures. They come to us as corporate decisions first made by the Church centuries ago, and now confirmed and commended to us by the corroborative testimony of all later generations that have accepted them, down to our time.... It is a prime obligation for Anglicans to take full account of the expository formulations to which our Church has bound itself; and to ignore them, as if we were certain that the Spirit of God had no hand in them, is no more warrantable than to treat them as divinely inspired and infallible."
This is the balance that ought to be applied to all doctrinal statements - not infallible, but not malleable. But in our pluralistic culture, where modernism and postmodernism have both managed to undercut all confidence in the existence of fixed truths and of a language that can communicate such truths, the Articles of Religion, like most other statements of religious belief, become quite flexible.

I blogged long ago about what Robert Sanders has called the ecstatic heresy. Sanders wrote that since the days of Schliermacher, all understanding of God has been divorced from reason and content. Liberal theologians seek not truth, but a mystical experience of a God who is ineffible and beyond categories, words, or understanding. Since words cannot describe God, words can have virtually any meaning poured into them in the name of religious "faith". Said Sanders:

Ecstatics do not deny the Scripture, the Creeds, or the great documents of our tradition. They do not throw them away. They love them. For them the Scriptures are the foundation of our faith, the liturgy resonates with the Ineffable, the Articles of Religion are a cultural treasure. They simply revise these sources along ecstatic lines. That is why it is appropriate to call them "revisionists."

To me, this is the key disease of our age. Nothing exists that cannot be redefined.

Historically, the Episcopal church in the USA started to slide into revisionist territory in the days of Bishop Pike. Pike denied essential doctrines such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, Original Sin and the Trinity, yet the Episcopal church, fearing a media trial, never managed to discipline him or hold him accountable. His views, and those of others, were allowed to spread into the seminaries and eventually filtered into the churches.

Where many believe the Episcopal church began its slide into "revisionism" was in the issue of the ordination of women. Why? Women's ordination represented a first step in reading the Biblical text in the light of modern social consciousness - looking for ways to get around the implications of the text itself. Advances in women's rights may have been desirable. A plain reading of scripture, however, places a limit on very few, very specific roles for women, rooted in the nature of the created order itself. Ordaining women was, to many, playing loose with scripture.

In 1974 a group of women were "irregularly" ordained as priests in Philadelphia. In 1977 the "irregular" female priests "regularized." and one hundred women were ordained by the end of that year. By 1997 only four dioceses still refused to ordain female priests. Finally in June of 2006 Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. In a single generation, the text of scripture and 2000 years of church history were reinterpreted.

Whether a woman can serve in a teaching capacity was not the primary issue. Whether scripture is subject to being molded by cultural pressure was the primary matter, and remains so.

Other bishops who denied the historic tenets, not only of the Anglican Articles of Religion, but of the historic creeds and the statements of scripture as well, found a home in a church that could not find the strength to oppose them. John Spong remains an author of popular influence. The Virgin Birth, miracles, the physical resurrection and the account of creation are all outdated notions according to Spong. He has argued that the Apostle Paul struggled with homosexual desires and has stated in essence he has no idea what God is like.

These views do require a great bit of "revision" of the text of scripture. They require a great deal of denying the text itself to find hidden meanings between the lines or in the "cultural" spirit of another time.

In the eyes of the new faith of the Episcopal church in the USA, the spirit of God is doing something new and discarding something old. One Bishop, Charles Bennison, claimed that the church wrote the Bible and can therefore rewrite it. He also holds that Jesus was himself a sinner - his great act of God-consciousness was that he forgave himself.

This business of ignoring the meaning of texts and finding all truth in the winds of cultural change finally culminated in a singular church shattering act when in 2003, Gene Robinson was elected to be a Bishop. Among Robinson's theological insights is the view that Jesus might be gay.
It may be no accident that Revisionist types in the Anglican church are often "high church", although as Revisionists, they are not at all squeamish about rewriting liturgies to suit certain "inclusive" agendas. God as Mother, for example is not an uncommon theme. But the external forms of religion lend a certain historical validity to ideas that have no root in either scripture or church history. Retaining certain words, actions, symbols and religious objects while completely altering their meaning enables revisionists to easily convince a sleepy flock that Pike, Spong, Schiori and Robinson are not, in fact, wolves, but genuine shepherds.

The final result is that this third face of Anglicanism is, in terms of theology, totally incompatible with the orthodox Trinitarian views of either Anglo-Catholic Traditionalists or Bible-believing Evangelicals. To those on the outside, Anglicanism presents an image of absolute chaos. The current trend of orthodox believers in both the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical camps seeking shelter from conservative bishops in the Global South is, in my mind an inestimable improvement over a historical pattern of compromise of truth for the sake of unity. Most evangelicals find it desirable and necessary to band together with Anglo-Catholics, who affirm the Trinitarian beliefs of the Nicene Creed and the essential morality of the 10 Commandments in order to resist the complete loss of all that is historically Christian in the camp of the Revisionists. Disagreements about sacraments and soteriology will have to wait.

Still it makes it difficult to explain to a watching world any cogent answer to the question "what is Anglican?" There is no answer that seems to suffice. The term "via media" is often used, but when one looks below the surface, it appears to suggest not a middle way but a blurring of boundaries. Gay rights groups have pirated the term to their own purposes.

For my part, I tend to take the scripture at face value and tend to take doctrinal statements the same way. As such, I land fairly solidly in the camp of Evangelicalism. I have learned to look to the history and traditions of the church for aid in interpreting scripture, but am hard pressed to enthusiastically embrace ideas or pratices that go beyond explicit scriptural texts. I am firmly opposed to bending scripture to fit with current cultural notions on sexual morality or theological definitions. For that reason I am very uncomfortable with bending the Articles of religion to make them compatible with a particular 19th century view of sacramental and ecclesial matters. I am more opposed to bending or obliterating historic and biblical concepts to fit moder or postmodern trends in the realm of both theology and behavior.

Anglicanism is definitely dividing into two camps, those who accept the orthodox Nicene definitions of the Faith and those who do not. It may well be that once that separation has become a matter of history, there will be too much distance on sacrament and soteriology to prevent the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings from dividing as well. Then again, it may be that both sides will decide that Nicene Orthodoxy is essential and sacramental theology it not, allowing both to agree to disagree within the same Ecclesial body.

But as the tug of war for the soul of the Anglican communion drags on, year after year, one wonders what the final toll will be in terms of the perception of Christianity before the rest of the world.

Just Another Thought on Piper

2008-03-08T10:52:00.004-06:00

My reaction to John Piper's recent article was strong. That was because his words were extremely troubling. I felt personally wounded by the idea that Arminianism is a "threat to the atonement", because I value the atonement highly. Two further thoughts.

One: Definitions matter. Arminian theology is not Pelagian, nor is it open theism. Arminians believe God is sovereign. The only real question is how. Arminians believe God's foreknowledge is not dependent on an eternal decree. Regarding the gospel, Arminians believe human beings are completely and utterly fallen, unable to in any way affect their own salvation. Arminians believe salvation is a gift that is completely and totally unmerited. In this regard, Arminians are in lock step with Calvinists.

Where the divergence comes is at the point where the atonement becomes limited (a notion nowhere explicitly taught in scripture) and particularly the point where God might be accused of causing the very evil Christ came to remedy.

Arminians believe "no man comes to the father unless the spirit draws him", which means even our faith is a gift - God's Spirit must convict us of sin and enable us to recognize our falleness. No good works will undo the damage of a single sin. All we have to offer God is the empty hands of faith, and at that point, and only at that point, is our will involved. God offers unmerited, unearned Grace to all (explicitly taught in scripture), and beckons to all to come - but not all respond. That is the source of evil - created beings turning their back on a loving God.

What rankles Arminians is the logical problems and the countless scriptural passages that are seemingly ignored in the statement: "There is no atonement and no gospel without God-planned sins". It is the "God-planned" part that is the real problem.

Two: Every action leads to a reaction. And this is disturbing. Other bloggers have reacted strongly to Piper as well, decrying his "arrogance" (and I have written of him as seeming quite humble) in having such strong certainty in his convictions. And sadly, some seem to be going to the opposite extreme. Because conservative theologians like Piper are, in their eyes, too sure of themselves on this issue, they suggest that Christians should make no firm pronouncements on other issues as well - like gender roles, sexual mores and definitions of the nature of God. How sad.

I wish for a Christianity where there is a good balance. It has been said before by many others, and I say it again: Where scripture is clear, we should be firm. Where scripture is unclear, we should be gracious. Where scripture is silent we should be silent. The liberals and many emergents wish to be clear about nothing. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Anglicans seem to be extremely devoted to notions and practices not found in scripture at all. Some in the evangelical/fundamentalist camp seem unable to be flexible about anything, even obscure and difficult matters.

And the end result is that scripture itself tarnished as a book that only causes strife.

Lord forgive me where I have erred, have mercy on us all. But let me never abandon the Word in spite of all our human errors and all the shame we bring to it.

John Piper Calls Arminianism a "Threat to the Atonement"

2008-03-04T20:16:00.004-06:00

I generally have liked John Piper, in spite of his strongly Calvinist views. I've been a two-point Calvinist (Arminian) most of my life. I have blogged about the subject extensively. So I have to admit a bit of disappointment that Piper has essentially concluded that Arminians are enemies of the gospel. Or more accurately, a "threat to the atonement". He writes in the outline to a message "How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels":

"There are many today, as in every day, who bring to the Bible the presupposition that sinful man must have the power of self-determination in order to be held accountable by God. This is not a biblical presupposition. It threatens to undermine the gospel because it pushes people away from believing that God can plan and bring to pass the sins that are essential to the death of his Son.

"We don’t usually think about Arminianism as a threat to the atonement. It usually comes in at the point of the accomplishment of the gospel and the offer of the gospel, not the point of the plan of the events of the gospel. But here we see that there is an intrinsic incompatibility between the basic Arminian presupposition and the gospel as including a set of planned sins against the Son of God. That presupposition is that for humans to be morally accountable agents they must have the ultimate power of self-determination at all those points where they are found blameworthy or praiseworthy.

"That presupposition pushes people away from believing that God has the right and power in righteousness and wisdom to infallibly plan the death of his Son through the sinful acts of morally accountable men. But the Bible teaches that he did. There is no atonement and no gospel without God-planned sins against the Son of God. He died at the hands of sinful men by God’s design. That is an essential part of the gospel. 'He died for our sins according to the scriptures.' "

The title is bothersome. It is clear that Arminian views (among others) are to Piper a "false gospel". Not a differing viewpoint on something scripture is confusing about - not just an alternative on a matter that has never been a point of universal consensus in church history. He calls a simple belief in a small concession to free will a "false gospel".

And not only that, he makes it absolutely clear that there is no gospel at all unless God planned the acts of sinful men. The acts that sent Christ to the cross had to be God's plan or there is no gospel. I find this rather incredible to hear.

He picks on lots of things he finds to be false, some of which I would tend to agree with. He picks on John Shelby Spong, he picks on Universalism, N.T. Wright and The New Perspective on Paul as well. Each of things things, he says, is in some way a distortion of the gospel. But in Piper's eyes, according to his words, John Wesley and C.S. Lewis, as Arminians, are just as much an enemy of the atonement as universalism or the nuttiness of John Spong.

I find this a bit "over the top" to say the least. He has every right to hold to his views on unconditional election, double predestination and more. But to argue, as he does, that simply believing that the human will, only after being lured by the grace of God, simply assents to receive unmerited and unearned grace is somehow a destruction of the atonement is a bit hard to believe.

I have respected John Piper. I have to say I respect him considerably less now.

Evangelicalism The New Mainline (Liberalism Part 2)

2008-03-01T12:22:00.007-06:00

Bob Burney has an excellent article on the future of the Evangelcal movement on Townhall.

Key passages:

"A few decades ago liberal theologians gained control of the (mainline) seminaries. Instead of teaching their pastoral and theological students to love, trust and revere the Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant revelation to mankind, they were taught to question, doubt and debate the claims of Scripture. To question truth became the ultimate objective rather than discovering truth. The “search” was not a part of the journey, it was the destination.

"Young theologians were taught by their professors that truth was unknowable—even the truth of Scripture. They were instructed to believe that the Bible had to be re-interpreted by each generation. Truth was defined not by the mind of God, but by the consensus of the present generation.

"As years passed this new theology found its way from the seminary to the pulpit. Something strange happened. Those in the pew were more discerning than those in the pulpit. Many couldn’t put their finger on it exactly, but they knew something was wrong. Sermons no longer gave answers to life’s problems from the authority of Scripture, they offered platitudes and empty philosophy. Pulpits devoid of authority lost their power and those in the pew found the door. The result? Those in leadership analyzed the drastic situation of declining membership, attendance and revenue and decided that the answer was to … become more liberal! "

He connects these old mainline trends to current trends in the Emerging Church.

"Even a cursory examination of the current fads within evangelicalism shows a shocking trend. Those once characterized by strict adherence to the authority of Scripture are starting to walk in the footsteps of their mainline counterparts. The Emergent Church (which seems to gain strength daily) is characterized, to a great extent, by the same propensities as those who led mainline Protestantism into oblivion."

Using Rob Bell as an example, he writes:

"This is ...(the view of the Emergent Church generally) concerning Bible doctrine. Doctrine is not primarily to be understood but merely studied. To question, to discuss and to debate is the end—not discovery and proclamation. It would be nice to be able to truly 'know' doctrine and to have it all in place, but it’s not necessary. A spring here or there can be removed without hurting the trampoline. In other words, the Virgin Birth is important, but not vital. The whole concept of how a person is really justified may never be completely understood so, as long as you love Jesus, you’re in.

"This attack on the authority of Scripture is much more dangerous than that of the liberals who destroyed the mainline denominations. Why? Because it’s much harder to discern. It’s cloaked in the language of evangelicalism, but under the cloak is the doctrine of doubt rather than confidence in the biblical witness. For Bell and others, it seems that questioning Scripture is more important than understanding it. We’re left with essentially the same message as classic theological liberalism, but wrapped in different packaging."

I pray Evangelicals will wake up.