Creation: eclectic?

In Michael Jensen's blog, he announced recently his plan for a book on anthropology: interesting project; he also commented on the connection points with the doctrine of creation. I commented as follows:

Michael,

Sounds like a fabulous project; although I don't know that the doctrine of creation can be set as you've suggested: as more eclectic than the Doctrine of God, or as being integrative rather than comprehensive. If these poles determine your analysis, then I think that other than the polarities you have selected might be considered. For example, I don't think that the doctrine of creation is up for grabs in the eclectic manner you suggest here. The scriptures set it as definitive and determinative of the identity of God and the parameters of our relationship with God and each other. Therefore I think that some of your themes may need to be cast in a less individualistic, atomistic manner, and more in terms of the cluster of relationships which make the setting and sense of questions 1 and 6, particularly, but all as they hang off question 4.

I think Calvin brought creation and his doctrine of God into a close coupled arrangement, and indeed, it would be hard to see anything else in the scriptures, I would think; God provides the creation as his chief identifying element, and his credential for our worship of him; collecting other perspectives in an integrative manner, rather than for prophetic analysis, seems at odds with this.

However, it will be interesting to read your handling of literature in this context, particularly as most, particularly more modern works, seem to share with ancient pagan creation myths (and encapsulate it in the modern myth to which they implicitly refer and give credence: the idea of evolution) a conception of the totality of the material world, the 'given-ness' of the cosmos as a complete basis for our life and the reality in which we are embedded. Then going on to capture any conceptualisation of the divine as a comparative triviality completely captured by the over-arching material world, expressed in some sort of man-glorifying way as either unknowable or not worth really knowing, being merely some sort of cultural fabrication borne of ignorance, or at best, a folorn protest at the ultimate lonliness of persons in a cosmos which is finally impersonal.

However, knowing your acceptance that the idea of evolution is genuinely explanatory, and this cannot be prevented from being explanatory at all levels (contrary to the oxymoronic 'theistic-evolution'), I would fear that your project will more than tip its hat to the nostrums of materialism/naturalism and capture God to a human intellectual-aesthetic (not to say political) construction to remove him from his place as creator, in real terms. I would hope that it holds up the teleological barrenness that literature leaves man in when it denies God as real, or God as creator as he discloses in the early chapters of Genesis, then unfolds to provide the contraverting frame for the news of the new creation.

I touch on some of these issues in my blogs:

http://anglicanoriginsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2011/12/de-godding-creation.html

And also in Four Moves.

Remarkable Claims

Nice quote from Carl Sagan, ironically, at Herding Cats:

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.

OK, let's hear the remarkable 'proof' for:

Evolution

Extra-terrestrials

Theistic evolution (evolution, really, but where's the biblical data...seriously!)

Big Bang

I mean 'REMARKABLE' proof, not just the circumstantial hand waving we get instead.

De-godding the creation

Letter I sent to Dr Harbin, regarding his 1997 article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society "Thestic-Evolution"

I recently read your 1997 article in JETS on theistic evolution. I acknowledge that this was written some time ago, and that your interests may have shifted over the intervening period, but, on the assumption that you have maintained some connection with the thinking in this paper; I would like to offer some comments.

In a debate as complex and challenging as the one you have addressed, it was refreshing that you distinguished between different usages of the concept ‘evolution’. I also appreciated your canvassing of some of the more obvious theological issues (I say ‘more obvious’ not to downplay them, as I think much work remains to tease out the implications of the points that you made).

The nub of the problem, is, as you identify, that theistic evolution has more of evolution than ‘theism’, at least of the biblical variety, and subsumes biblical considerations under materialist/mechanistic ones.

A couple of aspects of the attempt to blend the biblical doctrine of creation and contemporary framing of the origins ‘story’, I think challenge how we understand God and his relation to us (which of course the salient issue of the fall and its counter in God’s redemption opens).

In brief, to assert evolution as basic to the formation of life as we see it, makes a representation about both God and the cosmos that differs from the representation that God himself makes in the Bible, at many points. It says something about God which God doesn’t say!

At root, it makes God not an author in direct relationship with his creation, contrary to what the Bible sets out, and the creation thus as consistent with who God is, but an author who is hidden, occulted by intervening principles which in themselves not just obscure his hand, but negate it entirely. Hard then to align evolution even if ‘theistic’ with God relying on his being creator as the basis of worship, especially throughout the prophets.

This voids the real dependence of the creation on the creator and allows the deist view to run riot and invert the relationship of creator and creature, to enclose the God within the creation, in effect; this is the critical failing of all the ANE creation myths that I’ve read in that they all presuppose a cosmos at some level.

In the creation account God sets out the marks of his activity (and ReMine, for example would say that the marks remain patent) in his close and immediate involvement with the components of the creation. They are not independent and not the result of mechanism, but all the result of intention at every point, underscoring that person-hood (God’s) is ontologically basic, whereas to push God into an occult role obscures this and proposes some 'principle' as basic, I think.

As a result, the cosmos is ‘de-godded’. God as an effective and involved creator: which one who is love would be expected to be, is removed, and a void is opened up that non-love, exemplified in materialism, fills; but it is a faux filling, because the filling is beyond human/personal engagement and is not relationally accessible (personal relationship, that is). It is an empty filling!

De-godding re-configures the cosmos, ‘reality’, in ontological terms, and the core of reality being God’s wisdom at work through love in relationship is gone, to be replaced by the echo of a plea for significance that seems to be pre-supposed in almost every human activity, and indeed extended to the rest of life that is arrayed for human attendtion (that is, in the presence of man as worshipping creature place over the creation to care for it).

De-godding also makes Adam’s naming the animals a meaningless gesture. With God patent and involved in the creation as we experience it (e.g. made the kinds of animals, not a pathway where chemicals could become cells, could become animals…maybe) the naming is steward’s response to his lord’s lovingly knowing his creation. Adam, therefore also now knows it in terms that are congruent with his being the steward.

A de-godded cosmos is one where God is no longer able to demonstrate his ‘god-ness’ to us for us to know him, but one where the focus of our gaze ends at the creature, and that in its mute form: dirt and energy, and tells us nothing about ourselves. Redemption then drifts to myth instead of re-connecting us with what really is.

Finally, if Genesis 1 doesn’t convey information about the cosmos, in terms that make sense in the cosmos, and correspond to what they claim to describe: that is events occurring in space and time, and predicated on the same categorical arrangement and space-time causality in relationships that we would meaningfully apply; then they tell us nothing, and cannot, by telling us something other than what happened, what in fact happened in summative terms contrary to the well worn irrationality that the creation account doesn’t tell us what God did, but that he is creator; well, he is only ‘creator’ on account of him telling us what he did. If we deny that, we deny that he is creator; which is where theistic-evolution must leave us.

Why Leadership? #2

I got a reply to my previous post, and the writer wanted some background, so I rejoined with this:

My observations on 'leadership' come from years of ministry and advanced formal study in management.

The problem as we conceptualise the body of Christ (thus different from the pre-incarnation references to God's people) in terms that gives sense to 'leadership' is that we run, I think, the very risk that Mintzberg identifies as fatal to an enduring practice in any organisation, where one, or even a small group is stuck out the front or on a pedestal and isolation between leader and lead is created: the word itself does that; and renders everyone else a follower, induced to passivity; against how I think the biblical injunctions on church life would work.

The induction to passivity leads pretty quickly to the church coalescing around the 'priesthood' and ministry, the ministry of all believers, ceases to be the central motif of church life. It also gives the 'leader' an impossible job to do. Isolating this person from the coalition of mutual service that is in situational flux in the paradigmatic church. That is we take different roles with respect to one another as circumstances adjust. I've seen many a home group 'leader' feeling overburdened by the false responsibility they think they have, when if their service had been characterised, as it truly was, as 'convening', ministering or even just helping, their and the group life would have been simpler and more effective.

But, I think what disturbs me about the slide from talk about ministry to talk about leadership over the past 30 years, in my observation, is that we adopt organisational terminology which points away from the gospel. Thus my use of terms about my own experience above, which are community centric terms, not 'me-centric', I hope, and I hope my efforts have been genuinely of this manner, and the list I suggested in my first email to you. So, not 'youth leader' but youth minister/worker, not children's 'leader' (if there are any children's leaders, they are their parents), but children's worker, teacher...etc.

As I composed this list, I reflected on my admiration for my late father's trade union work. His union adopted terms for the service roles they had that reflected their beliefs about the way things should work. Oddly enough the 'leader' of the smallest unit (called a chapel) was the 'father'. They had organisers, delegates and similar roles, because they were all equally workers, and no one 'led' them!

So too in the church. If we are serious about our profession, I think that we must organise congruently with this profession. As soon as we say that there are leaders ('archon', is, I think the Greek equivalent word, and not used of church life in the NT) we say that there are followers; but we only follow Christ. Paul is clear on that as he teaches against party spirit; if we say there are leaders and followers, we also say that we have leadership, not community-ship (a coining by Mintzberg that I particularly like).

Thus, as I read the list regarding healthy church life...which list I've worked with in another denomination, I think, if a church has 'good leadership' that is expressed in the natural reading of the phrase, ministry will inevitably break down, the 'pastor' and elders will burn out and the church will dry up, the idea is a problem both terminologically and instrumentally. But what if a church was characterised by a resilient network of ministry groups? Much better I think, and very much what chimes with the NT church life exhortations.

A couple of references that may be of interest:

http://complexityandmanagement.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/hello-world/ and quite a few other posts

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/24/6/961.abstract (I can send you this article if you don't have access)

http://www.faithandleadership.com/multimedia/ronald-heifetz-the-nature-adaptive-leadership

Why Leadership?

I read with interest you piece on the healthy church in the current issue of Together.

Lists that motivate action are always helpful, and one could probably not disagree with your nine points, even though we would all probably give the phrases differing understandings.

But, I do disagree with one of them: point 2 "empowering leadership". I think that there is much wrong with this notion from many perspectives.

I will, however, be brief, and argue that I don't find this concept in the New Testament at all. All I find there is a charismatic community: joint 'leadership' at work, if we must still use this term. It is a great concern that we've imported into our conceptualisation of church, and rather uncritically, the worldly concept of 'leadership'. And its not even uncontested in the world of business organisation, whence it came.

Refer to this article by Henry Mintzberg, for instance: http://www.oxfordleadership.com/journal/vol1_issue2/mintzberg.pdf, and this one:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c917c904-6041-11db-a716-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=8d70957c-6288-11db-8faa-0000779e2340.html#axzz1bDm1PwMc

What the concept of leadership does in a church is instantly disempower everyone, no matter how 'empowering' it sets out to be. The paradox is, that if a 'leader' wants to empower, they must think that they have the power to give out. I don't think that this is the case scripturally, or in terms of the sociology of congregational organisations, such in your denomination.

With the joint exercise of ministry, a healthy church will not have a 'leader', someone who has the ideas, gives out power, forges into the future, because we are lead as a church by the Holy Spirit. I would not want to usurp this role.

Now, its a pity that our adherence to the scriptures does not permeate the way we think about ourselves as organisation. Our language should reflect our beliefs. We don't have leaders, we have organisers, coordinators, helpers, facilitators, teachers, convenors, moderators (a good concept in the Presbyterian church that has morphed into 'leader' unfortunately), delegates and above all, ministers: servants of the people of God. And we don't have that awful oxymoron, the 'servant-leader' which is a trick of business rhetoric and has no real meaning within a church context.

Don't know...maybe

Mick Jensen, in a recent article in Eternity magazine claimed that it's OK for Christians not to be certain about everything.

Well, of course, but by what epistemological slight of hand do we extend that to the Bible and overturn its literary clarity?

For instance, Michael was asked a while ago if he thought that Noah's flood occured. His answer? "Maybe".

Well, where did 'maybe' come from? On what basis does he set aside the biblical information for some other information? and where does this hermeneutical project draw its lines?

I have a fairly good feeling that he would think that uncertainty about the basic doctrine of the creation has a similar status: that is, the uncertainty is acceptable. Only this time we're not considering a trifle, but something that is basic about God, us and what connects us.

Mc'Neill puts it nicely, talking of Calvin:

Throughout his thought a judgement of the nature of man accompanies the doctrine of God; theology is linked with anthropology. God is not for a moment conceived merely as the author and ruler of the universe, but always as Creator and Redeemer of man. God's resources answer man's need.

Calvin de-abstracts the God which I think idealist views such as I think MJ entertains make increasingly theoretical and detached from the real interactions grounded in his word-acts in Genesis 1. The creation is about connection, its deconstruction evaporates this and isolates man from God, undoing the connection that is patent in the text.

So here, I think the Bible expects us to have certainty. If we want uncertainty, we can only achieve that by an arbitrary epistemological move, a move, I think, against the revelatory capacity of the Spirit, and one that muddles the historical stream of relations between God and man.

I've also talked about this in the four moves between God and man.

CBM 13532

A tablet, older than the Gilgamesh tablet, with a better story:

Unam Sanctam

In the Bull of 1302, Pope Boniface said:

..he pretends that there are two prinicples, which doctrine we judge to be false and heretical because, as Moses testifies, God created heaven and earth not in several but in one prinicple.

Now, PB was talking about Manichaeans, but the observation applies eminiently to the philosophy of origins. He was right, Moses in scripture conveys a unitry principle of and in creation: God's speaking in wisdom and love producing one entire creation de novo: no room for alternative principles, such as idealism, materialism or naturo-mysticism. When attempts are made to mix the unified creation with materialism, we get an attempt at two principles going at once: incoherent, crazy and undoing Christ, who is the creator!

I have to wonder at people like our esteemed Archbishop, who think that the notion of the two mixing is somehow rational! Of course Christ diluted is Christ eliminated. Not Good Peter!

Growing Science

From The World of the Reformation by Hillerbrand:

Protestant learning enjoyed the advantage of not being unduly restricted by the weight of tradition. It was able to explore new avenues. that the Nuremberg reformer Andreas Osiander contributed a preface to Copernicus's famous work on The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, in which he defended the scientist's right to offer hypotheses, is worthy of note in this connection.

Sistine Chapel

Another from Elton's Reformation Europe:

The God of the Sistine Chapel is the pre-Reformation God: man's answer to the problem of the universe.

Now, of course, the 'answer' is not God, not a person, not the one who is love, and makes our love of value, but the universe ourself...a mere pile of powder, albeit a big one, above which nothing can rise!

the world ends

Quote from David Byrne's blog:

“The end of the world happens every time somebody dies.”

Something for a theologian to do something with, although, an atheist (or en evolutionist, for that matter), of course, could do nothing with it.

So, where would that leave the Archibisop of Sydney, given that he's an evolutionist and there's no between category.

Reformation Europe

Quotes from Elton's Reformation Europe:

The revival of Greek studies might add to the number of authorities consulted, but it did not encourage any idea of criticising received knowledge by personal observation...astrology deserves to be called the specific science of the humanist.

Reminds me of so much that is said of evolution!

it is now thought that he probably arrived at his revolutionary notion by pure reasoning, without any scientific investigation. This is a method which has yielded as much error as truth, and in the sixteenth century reasoned error predominated.

Same again!

Theistic evolution #2

I mentioned TE a while ago, but I've moved on a little, and think that the term should be expunged from discussion. Once Christ is mixed with another 'principle'; in this case, the principle that not only did the Word create, but the creation created itself, Christ is diminished. So, there can't be two creators: Christ and the creation; with separate ontologies, but only one.

So, if a Christian thinks that the two can mix, then I think they are referring to a 'god' other than the creator, and so they are only referring to evolution.

Open letter to Peter Jensen: atheism debate

Dear Peter,

I followed with interest your recent participation in the 'atheist' debate. One remark that you made in that debate caught my attention.

You said:

Thus, it is not with evolution as science that I have a problem; it is with evolution as an idolatrous explanation of all things; it confuses mechanism with agency; science with theology.

It seems from this that you regard ‘evolution’ as being restricted to mere biological machinery descriptive of, for instance, the development of new species, or indeed, all life from just one cell. I get the impression that you conceptualise this within a basically creationist frame of reference: that is, you hold that God created, although, possibly not as the Bible sets out (how one could know that God did create, or that it was God who did the creating, when what is currently claimed about the universe's origin, and seemingly accepted by many Christians does not line up with scripture is not entirely clear, but that is another matter).

The fearful thing is that your position allows the unravelling of any proclamatory opportunity by its acceptance of the materialist framing of being when discussion of origins arises (as it did in the speech by Russell Blackford). As soon as it is denied that Genesis gives any information about the history of the cosmos, the biblical conceptualisation of the compass of God and our existential ground is unseated, the point of contact between a real God taking real action in making then redeeming the world, for real effect is gone and the way to repentance is effectively closed. This is denial, in short, that there is any possible objective concrete reference in Genesis 1 to real events or the world we stand in and where God’s covenant is operative.

As soon as we say that Genesis conveys truth, but not in the only information that it presents, we invite the materialist to maintain his conceptualisation of the world and find no place for God. This comes about because we say that the world can at once be created with the only representation of this in the detail set out in Genesis 1, by a God who is love, and for loving reasons, and be the aimless product of random material interactions, and full of un-love, at the same time.

This hardly brings glory to God. Modern evolutionary atheism is clear on this: it sees no place for the glory of God in an evolved world, only ‘facts’ that show there is no god (a stark example of this is provided by Sommers and Rosenberg in “Darwin’s nihilistic idea: evolution and the meaninglessness of life” Biology and Philosophy 18: 2003)!

And it doesn’t help to grasp at analogical views of Genesis 1 to hope to change this. These end up not explaining the text, but explaining it away. Thus, ‘framework’ type views are ‘anti-exegetical’: in that they deny the intersection of the text and the real world of sin and relationship, rather than prophetically position us within it.

So, what is happening here?

I think we must reach back into the Enlightenment “project” to tease this out.

In your remark you seem to have bought the Enlightenment story, without acknowledging that it starts with a complete disjunct between rationality inherited from its biblically inspired forebears, and the Bible itself, attempting instead to find a rational ground in humanist terms: the biblical basis is removed, but its effects are forlornly held on to.

To save its scheme, the Enlightenment needed to find a substitute basis for the real and us in it that was independent of a creator, or at least a creator-person. It found this, after not to much searching, in rehabilitating the ancient Greek notion of a universe that is truly ontologically independent and that necessarily, made itself. Thus is the evolutionary principle around which the modern world turns.


For you to then express a concern that the modern world wants evolution to be more than a minor mechanical detail of biological change and adaptation could only evoke puzzled looks from its proponents: that’s the very point of it! Evolution is a totalising world view that explains, and is relied upon to explain, the origin and nature of the universe purely in terms of the universe itself. It has reduced God, if he is to be given any place at all, to a result of matter (brain activity), completely captured within the bounds of the cosmos and entailed by it, at best. Certainly not separate from it, not holy, not to be glorified and worshipped, from whom there can have been no separation, against whom death is neither a breach nor the last enemy, and to whom is owed nothing at all.

In the end, your remarks betray two mistakes about evolution.

Firstly, you think that it is just the mechanical detail of life within a basically Christian conception of the world. Not so, as it proposes completely different things about the real world from those in Genesis 1, in the main.

Secondly, you seem to confine evolution to science alone, cutting it off from wider questions. In fact, it starts as a metaphysical principle and ends, not as science, which it never was, but as a metaphysical setting for all experience that pursues the material (“now, let’s suppose that the universe is not the result of intention, but is completely explained by naturalistic processes”), and rejects the personal, let alone the supernatural, as basic to being. Evolution is an overarching materialist conceptualisation of the world, counter at every point to the Christian one.

Post the Enlightenment; it is a methodologically pagan program that is, as Mary Midgley, the British philosopher, pointed out in ‘Evolution as a Religion’, the creation myth of the modern Western mind. It is the idea that now provides the cultural and intellectual reference point for art, literature, intellectual enquiry (including theology, I must add; yours being an example), and human relations. It has nothing to do with anything that the creator God reveals about himself, the world or our redemption.

Also on creation and the Christian starting point.

Ancient Error

This appeared in the SMH letters: John Dickson is a member of the Centre for Public Christianity and a Sydney Anglican clergyperson. He is probably most well known here for his heterodox views of Genesis 1; yet in his own field:

Not-so-ancient error
Having also waded in ancient literature on ethics, I must advise John Dickson (''And the last shall be first - why leaders thrive on humble pie'', October 7) that the Athenian statesman Pericles certainly never lamented how little influence he had compared with Demosthenes. Pericles died nearly half a century before Demosthenes was born.

Back in fourth century BC Athens, Demosthenes and Aeschines were the Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott of their day, and it was the modern advertising executive David Ogilvy who observed: ''When Aeschines spoke they said 'How well he speaks'; but when Demosthenes spoke they said 'Let us march'.'' As an academic in the department of ancient history at one of our prominent universities, it is Dr Dickson who will be eating the humble pie, I'm afraid.

Julian Holden Turramurra


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/pity-were-not-as-concerned-for-foreign-children-20111009-1lfmg.html#ixzz1aLW6nivy

Where do we go now?

As I was reading back through Al Mohler's blog, I came to this article on a recent Templeton Prize winner. It illustrates the end game of the opening canvassed by Peter Jensen in a recent debate: Peter starts by thinking that the evolutionary speculations can somehow be isolated from an evolutionary world view (well, they can, in a unreflective denial of their mutually exclusive bases). He thinks this will end in the glory of God. Al's blog illustrates that in fact, it goes the other way; unwittingly and ironically paving the road to perdition.

Is that all that is at stake?

In this post by Al Mohler, he talks about the importance of the historical place of actual Adam and Eve, something fast eroding in even evangelical circles; or likely be the next on the list of 'it aint history' in Genesis 1-11. The results are illustrated in Al's quotes in the article

Science and Religion

Survey at Rice University: they do mix!

Consensus

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled ... the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world ... Consensus is invoked only where the science is not solid enough ... Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Michael Crichton, 2003 Caltech lecture "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Archbishop off the rails

At the “Intelligence Squared” public debate held a little while ago in Sydney there were six speakers; 3 spoke for the motion “Atheists are wrong”; 3 against, but this Peter Jensen quote from his presentation followed by an extract from Russell Blackford’s later address highlights the strategic vulnerability of Jensen’s agnosticsm-based doctrine of creation.

Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen: Thus, it is not with evolution as science that I have a problem; it is with evolution as an idolatrous explanation of all things; it confuses mechanism with agency; science with theology.

Now, the AB clearly has a content-less doctrine of creation here; not seemingly aware of this aspect of the doctrine, that reality; or all that created; is ontologically isotropic; and congruently exhibits a uniformity of causal transactions. He seems to think that the one reality is open to different basic descriptions, or different natures: that is, one is like God (in the Bible) and the other is not like God. Blackford, below, picks this up (and interestingly, his evolutionary way does not result in God's being glorified, which tends to rule it out as having any part of the creation) noting that evolutionary doctrines are disjunctive with the world having been very good before man's fall. He regards the fall as fictional, of course; so he is left with a world that is temporally replete with suffering. Jensen is left in this place too, with no connection between the real world and a history that does not embed enmity between creation and God.

And its not even that he needs to discuss science: he's committed the error of the two magisteria here; playing right into the atheist trap; pity he doesn't have sufficient confidence in the revelation of God to set his revelation in the history of his actions in relation to us to whom he reveals himself and out of that bring a critique of atheist nonsense and its self refuting implications.

Dr Russell Blackford [part-way into his presentation]: As we survey all the world's horrible circumstances, the endlessly varied kinds of excruciating pain, the deep suffering and sheer misery, inflicted on so many human beings and other vulnerable living things, it is not believable that a God of Love would have remotely adequate reasons to permit it all.
And it's no use responding to such questions with talk of free will. If free will means anything, it means being able to act in accordance with your own nature and values.
God is supposed to have free will, and yet we are assured by theologians that God will never act malevolently because it is not in his nature to do so. God will always freely choose to do good.
Well, why wouldn't God create other beings with benevolent natures who will also freely choose to do good? Heaven is supposed to be like that, so why isn't Earth?
And anyway, only a relatively small amount of the suffering there has been in the world over hundreds of millions of years could possibly have anything to do with the free choices of human beings.
Why has an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love brought about the world's current life forms through the process of biological evolution, which has, as God could have foreseen, led to untold misery in the animal world? Why would God choose this as the process to bring about beings like us?
Biologists tell us that the evolutionary process inevitably produces design flaws - often painful or debilitating for the creatures concerned. These are present everywhere in the natural world, and in fact in the human genome itself.
These flaws are just part of the evidence that life on Earth has diversified over time through the blind process of evolution, rather than being the product of a guiding intelligence.
So why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love choose a process that foreseeably produces so many atrocious outcomes for the creatures involved?
Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love choose the cruel, brutal operation of evolution, in which species supersede each other? You can't reconcile the process of evolution with the existence of such a god.

Indeed, in Blackford’s comments introducing the above extract he scornfully taunted his Christian opponents’ lack of faith:

Russell Blackford: In fact, though, they [Peter Jensen, Tracey Rowland, Scott Stephens] seem to have shown a lack of faith. None of the traditional arguments for the existence of God have been relied upon - they seem to have no faith in those arguments.
Indeed, no argument of any kind for the existence of a god was developed by them in any concerted way.

The transcripts: Jensen's and Blackford’s.
,

Rocks in mud

In a recent promo on TV for a series on the cosmos, it was claimed that the series told us who we were and how we fitted into the universe.

That is, physical sciences, or the materialist interpretation of the physical world, is looked to for basic ontology and this as the foundation for human existential affirmations.

As I heard this promo, my mind went to the oft repeated phrase that religion (meaining biblical Christianity) and 'science' have two different domains of reference. The implication is that science deals with the real world; what actually is or actually happened, and is thus the real (material) basis for who we are and what significance we have (or don't), but religion deals within the real world about values, morals and other affective ethical aspects of life. But the important thing to note is that science is definitional and real, religion is derivative and encompased by the real defined by science. Science (in the sense of religions materialism and its cognates) then is the ultimate reference point, and religion is not.

Science, of course, is contextualised here by the materialist evolutionary world view, which sets out a comprehensive view of life, yet oddly introduces teleological concepts left right and centre contrary to its premis (see for instance the very notion of meaning: if there is in fact no 'meaning', or rather significance, meaning being a property of propositions, not phenomena, then science tells us nothing and any whiff of intentionality in any mind is a chimera).

Then, of course we have those theologians who, riding the wave of religion materialism's boosting, agree that the biblical informaiton about creation and contemporary scientific (materialist) claims about evolution treat different things, and are brought into compatibility in the notion of theistic evolution. Theistic evolution means that evolution is accepted, and any thing that God might have done is made consistent with the current materialist story.

Yet, this leaves one in great perplexity, because each has over-arching ontological claims with completely different epistemic and existential outworkings, which do not permit the glib compatibilist formulation that we have in theistic evolution.

Either the one is right: and intention is real because person-ness is basic in the structure of reality (that is God is and everything is a result of his intention, intention in love, moreover); or the other is, and if so, bibilical Christianity, and the spiritual matters it explicates are captured within the over-arching materialist ontology, and are not only finally, but are totally empty. The alternative, which theistic evolution seems to want to entertain, is that there is a functional dualism, with the real world we inhabit having a dualist character; at once created and un-created; with the incarnation being then inexplicable as there being no clear ontological relation between the dual ontologies. But this is simply unworkable because we can only live life as a unity, not monadically, but existentially and therefore ontologically unified with relations operating in consistent causality across time, space and domains of being.

What ends up is that we come straight round to material being basic, provding the root ontology, and intention (loving intention: our existential rootedness) being a (mere) epiphenomenon of matter and thus reflecting an arbitrary, or random, set of mechanical interactions at the atomic level with as much purpose and significanance as rocks caught in a mud slide!

Self Organisation

A self-organizing garden is called a weed patch.

Courtesy of this post on organising in IT projects using the 'agile' methodology.

Earth...Light...Action

In response to this Creation item; the following comment:

Thinking that the existence of light prior to the sun is problematic is, I think, an example of trying to project a naive observer view of the cosmos back into Genesis. While it is true that Genesis 1 has naive observer aspects, and some theologians think that this is the dominating characteristic of Genesis 1; I don't think that this is a necessary conclusion.
From a naive observor viewpoint is would seem peculiar if light, which seems to be made by the sun, existed before its source; but this misunderstands the physics of light. In fact, if there was no light: no photons emitted by sub-atomic excitement, there would be nothing coming out of the sun at all. Further, as light is but a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, one would reasonably surmise that the creation of light signified the creation of the entire spectrum, if not the entire energy field of the cosmos.
Could the lack of light be related to the formlessness and voidness of the 'stuff' of the cosmos: the heavens and earth as summary of all that was made, as inert 'stuff' un-energised occupant of space; add energy, and things really get going.
On these grounds, of course light would have to be 'made'. Without it the sun would be just sitting there, a mass of inert unproductive not-quite-matter.
Then this goes on to light being involved in the marking of evening and morning. I don't think that this occurs before day 4 when the marking of time is done by the heavenly bodies. Thus this marking was not occurring prior. So the evening and morning are set as nominal signifiers of the passing of time congruent with the later defined days now timed by the astronomical markers: same days by duration, different signification, but the same period of time elapsing on the basis of the equivalence of names.
I recall traveling in the arctic circle where my fellow travelers and I entertained each other playing with the fact that the light was the same at evening and morning: the light really didn't vary that much, but time still did pass, and the names gave meaning to the course of diurnal time. So with the days prior to day 4; I think is possible.

Sample of 1

A local newspaper reported a new allegedly candidate transitional ape-to-man fossil.
Well, it might be an intermediate between two species, but I don't know how this could be determined. From a fossil, ancestry and progination are just not determinable either in general or the particular; so its a mountain of speculation: if people financed their businesses this way, we'd all be broke overnight.
But its also impossible to determine what we are dealing with with a sample size of just 1.
Nevertheless, much trumpeted!
Also of interest is the volume of comments attracted (see below). For a matter that is largely neglected by the church, it has obvious attraction, usually far outweighing the attraction of many other topics.
Paul was right.

The article mentioned the supposed age of the find; but, true to a newspaper, without mentioning the range of results, their error bands and the physical calibration that applied (as opposed to the guesswork calibration of fossil order).

From (the) Kitchen, K. A. on ANE tales.

Re-posted from the Gairney Bridge blog:

K.A. Kitchen, in On the Reliability of the Old Testament, writes the following in response of frequent assertion of commonality between the biblical creation story and those of other early cultures:

The individual themes of creation and flood … recur in other writings. Thus the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (called “Babylonian Creation” in most books), completed circa 1000 from older sources, has been repeatedly compared with Genesis 1-2. But despite the reinterated claims of an older generation of biblical scholars, Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 share no direct relationship. … In terms of theme, creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is mere tailpiece in Enuma Elish, which is dedicated to portraying the supremacy of the god Marduk of Babylon. The only clear comparisons between the two are the inevitable banalities: creation of earth and sky before the plants are put on the earth, and of plants before animals (that need to eat them) and humans; it could hardly have been otherwise! The creation of light before the luminaries is the pecularity that might indicate any link between the Hebrew and Eunma Elish narrative; but where did it earlier come from? Not known, as yet. Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments. (pp. 424-425, emphasis added)

Kitchen goes on to describe various similarities and massive differences between the different flood accounts:

Here the basic contents are common to both the Mesopotamian and Genesis accounts. So we have in both: a flood sent as divine punishment; one man enjoined to build an “ark”; he taking family and living creatures; and his survival. In detail the differences are so numerous as to preclude either the Mesopotamian or Genesis accounts having been copied directly from the other. We may list the following: (1) The Mesopotamian gods sent the flood simply becausee they could not stand the noise made by humanity … . (2) The Mesopotamian gods hid their plan from all humanity … . (3) The respective boats differ totally; … the Mesopotamian one was a cube! (4) The lengths of duration of the respective floods differ … . (5) A much greater range of folk people the Mesopotamian craft (pilot, craftsmen, etc.) … . (6) The details of sending out birds differ entirely between the two accounts. (7) The Mesopotamian hero leaves the ark on his own initiative, then offers a sacrifice to appease the gods [who were angry at his escape] … . (8) The land of Mesopotamia was replenished by direct divine activity …; but in Gen. 9 it is left to Noah, family and surviving creatures to get on the job by natural means. So, an epochally important flood in far antiquity has come down in a tradition shared by both early Mesopotamian culture and Gen. 6-9, but which found clearly separate and distinct expression in the written forms left us by the two cultures. (p. 425, emphasis added).

Kitchen goes on to state in lengths of the various accounts are considered, “Genesis … offers a more concise, simpler account, and not an eloboration of a Mesopotamian composition” (p. 425, emphasis in the original). He also notes, “Floods per se were a commonplace in the ‘Land of the Two Rivers,’ so why this fuss about a flood? Presumably because, in folk memory, there had been a particularly massive one, far more fatal than most, and the memory stuck ever after, until finally it entered the written tradition. Assyriologists have no problem on this score” (p. 426).

Lucretius

From Chesteron's The Everlasting Man: on evolution and its ontological predicate!

There remains only the fourth element or rather the first; that which had been in a sense forgotten because it was the
first. I mean the primary and overpowering yet impalpable impression that the universe after all has one origin and one aim; and because it has an aim must have an author. What became of this great truth in the background of men's minds, at this time, it is perhaps more difficult to determine. Some of the Stoics undoubtedly saw it more and more clearly as the clouds of mythology cleared and thinned away; and great men among them did much even to the last to lay the foundations of a concept of the moral unity of the world. The Jews still held their secret certainty of it jealously behind high fences of exclusiveness; yet it is intensely characteristic of the society and the situation that some fashionable figures, especially fashionable ladies, actually embraced Judaism. But in the case of many others I fancy there entered at this point a new negation. Atheism became really possible in that abnormal time; for atheism is abnormality. It is not merely the denial of a dogma. It is the reversal of a subconscious assumption in the soul; the sense that there is a meaning and a direction in the world it sees. Lucretius, the
first evolutionist who endeavoured to substitute Evolution for God, had already dangled before men's eyes his dance of glittering atoms, by which he conceived cosmos as created by chaos. But it was not his strong poetry or his sad philosophy, as I fancy, that made it possible for men to entertain such a vision. It was something in the sense of impotence and despair with which men shook their fists vainly at the stars, as they saw all the best work of humanity sinking slowly and helplessly into a swamp. They could easily believe that even creation itself was not a creation but a perpetual fall, when they saw that the weightiest and worthiest of all human creations was falling by its own weight. They could fancy that all the stars were falling stars; and that the very pillars of their own solemn porticos were bowed under a sort of gradual deluge. To men in that mood there was a reason for atheism that is in some sense reasonable. Mythology might fade and philosophy might stiffen; but if behind these things there was a reality, surely that reality might have sustained things as they sank. There was no God; if there had been a God, surely this was the very moment when He would have moved and saved the world.

Pagans, poets and myth

From Chesterton's Everlasting Man

Paganism lived upon poetry; that poetry already considered under the name of mythology.

Chesterton reverses the logic of those who claim that Genesis as other than factual can tell us anything. Claims that poetry produces the rational realism of Christian thesim are simply wrong: poetry is bundled with myth to keep us from understanding, not to introduce us to it!

Theologian's Own-Goal

In the Sun-Herald on Sunday 14 August 2011, Brian Rosner, a 'New Testament scholar' attached to the Centre for Public Christianity, scored an own goal against Christian proclamation, and without even trying hard to avoid it! My son's soccer team does better.

What Brian did was write this, in the context of a press debate on teaching scripture in public schools, with Peter Fitzsimons, a well known booster for atheism.

"The much-maligned doctrine of creation, which to many Christians is not in opposition to evolution..."

Now, the correct line of debate with an atheist goes something like: "so why should your view, which results from an arbitrarily and essentially meaningless tangle of chemicals, have any credibility at all? Now let's get on with my view, which is based on people having real value."; however, Rosner, wanting to show how compatible are Christian ideas with those that would keep people from their creator forever, put it about that some Christians actually share the materialist world view of most (modern Western) atheists.

Now, what could he mean by this, apart from 'Peter, we are really on the same wavelength on what is basically real...nothing in Christian theology really needs to disrupt the atheistic thought world'? How crazy...with friends like these...

And why bring it up at all? The rhetoric of so many neo-othodox theologians in this context is that creation doesn't matter, just keep up with 'clear presentations of the gospel' (notwithstanding that Paul shows that the intellectual path for an atheist is from creation to Jesus: refer to Acts 17, as the paradigmatic evidence of this). No, Rosner shows that it is really important, but perhaps not as the Bible sets out; after all, if he can conflate the Bible's teaching that creation was purposed in love, quickly and recently with the idea that it is purposeless, slow and meandering, then he's on a different wavelength from the apostles. Seems that he's rather set to deflate the importance of the difference to help atheists into the kindgom. But what they would hear, and consistently do hear, from what they write, is that as soon as their world-concept is accepted, the rationale of the gospel evaporates, and God shifts notionally from transcendent creator, to social construct. Rosner abets this, despite the fundamental stuctural disparity between the two conceptions of the world, instead of opposing it with Pauline energy, concern and commitment!

As Al Mohler stated in his talk on the age of the universe, it is futile to try to meet atheists half way, as there is no halfway point for those in oppostion. As soon as ground is conceded, the attack has failed.

I can imagine Fitz saying in response: "so, my world view is fundamentally sound; what does 'God' add to it"?

But aside from this, what is the point of saying what a number of Christians think? That number may be decidedly wrong (as it is in this case); its the fallacy of truth being established by popular vote. For a paid Christian to make this mistake is frightening. If I was paying fees at Moore, I'd want a refund.

Finally, just why would a Christian accept that the doctrine of creation is 'much maligned'? Do I detect a freudian slip? Why not say, the 'poorly understood', or the 'not-very-well-communicated-by-the-church doctrine of creation' (and this because it is generally despised, as the behaviour of most theologians and proclamation indicates; or either ignored, rejected, or undermined by being re-written for compatibility with evolution; against which it is diametrically set!), or the 'completely neglected and disarticulated' or any number of other descriptions for how contemporary neo-orthodoxy blunts the sword of God's word. Of course the world maligns every doctrine we have; this is not news, but as a rhetorical strategy, I think it is wanting. Here is an occasion to make a point, but instead Rosner adopts the tail between the legs tactic: one known not to work!

Spotlight on leadership in the church

This article by Jon Zens picks up a theme I've caught in a few posts in my 'ministry' tag.

Drifting away, doing nothing

The Youthworks site has an article that shows where conventional evangelism, Christian education and apologetics fails to connect with what younger people; probably all people, really want to know about life, the universe and everything.

The four biggest questions that surveyed young people had were:

1. How can I know that God exists?
2. How could a good God send people to hell?
3. How can I believe in a good God when there is so much suffering?
4. Doesn’t evolution prove that God doesn’t exist?

The article's author went on to comment:

What strikes me about those questions is that they are very focused on the question of God’s existence and his nature

And is this surprising? I think not, because the Bible starts with these very questions: it sets out the parameters of the revelation of God in basic ontology linking immediately to the basic existential questions.

The author goes on to discuss this:

In our apologetics we often get caught up in the questions that we think are important, like: “did Jesus rise from the dead?” “Why doesn’t God want us to have sex before marriage?” “Can I take the bible literally?”These are good questions, but we should be dealing with the more foundational questions first such as: “Who is God?” even when we are teaching kids that we think are well informed.

In the survey, as well as choosing from a range of questions, there was the option of writing down your own question. Popular questions that came up repeatedly were:

1. Where does God come from?
2. Why did God make us?
3. If the Big Bang is true does that mean God is not?
4. What is heaven & hell and how do you go there?

The mistake that is made is Christian thinkers not engaging with the thought world of those outside the church; but assuming a shared thought world.

Yet, Paul, 2000 years ago, saw the issue, and confronted it in Athens. In Acts 17:22ff, he showed us how to evangelise outside of a Christian thought world:

So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;

A comment on the Youthworks website put it this way:

This article indicates a deeper theological problem; and that is we seem to think [and] convey to our children, and probably the world, that profound questions about our being here at all can be answered independently of God. This arises from the empty notion that Genesis 1 doesn't tell us 'how' or 'what' but only 'why'; when, of course, the three questions cannot be separated. If the how or what of our being can be answered without reference to 'why' then the 'why' is not truly informative; but is detached from the world.

The contrary is the case, however, in the Bible's 'view'. That is, at base the question that the Bible answers first off is 'who' and this is folded out in terms of 'what', 'how' and 'why'. All are bound up with one another and reality is finally personal, not finally material, which is insisted by the modern materialism that hides behind the facade (the house of cards, really) of evolutionary dogma and yet insists that it provides foundational truths about our world.

In a Christian frame, science is not philosophically separate from theology, but grows out of it. And this is reflected in the history of modern science growing out of a thought-world that took its cues from the Bible's structuring of the real world as created by God; and created recently and rapidly, which underlines the hand of God, and not material independence mediated by extended periods of time isolating the cosmos from its creator.

Kelly on Creation, Days and Theology

A piece published many years ago in The Presbyterian Witness


Q & A 
with
Dr. Douglas Kelly

Q. The focus of your forthcoming book is Christ and creation. What is the importance of a study on creation in our day?

A. The title of my next book is The Creation: An Exposition Look at Genesis In Light of Changing Paradigms. Let me begin by citing from a great work from Straussburg by one of Calvin’s colleagues written in 1539 called Hexameron (still in Latin) on the six-days of creation. It was authored by Wolfgang Capito. He says that creation is the foundation stone of the whole Christian philosophy. By Christian philosophy he means systematic theology - world and life view and practice. If God did not make this world then religion is really a matter of some less than real world.

        James Denny was a Scottish theologian in Glasgow in the 1890's and early 1900's. He wrote in the 1890's that to separate religion (Christianity) from science is to separate religion from the true. Once religion is separated from the true, Denny goes on to say, then religion dies among true men. I would say that if God begins His revelation to us with the doctrine of creation it must be important. It is therefore not only the first doctrine of the Bible (other than God Himself) it is primal. It is the basis of all covenants, of all revelation, of all God’s dealings with the human race, that He made all things out of nothing.

Of course we know from the New Testament, particularly the prologue to John’s Gospel that it was the agent of creation who took on flesh in the incarnation. As St. Anselm said in his famous Cor Deos Hormo? (Why Did God Become Man?) it took somebody as big as the Creator/God to become man to redeem us. If God is not really the Creator. Christ is not as big as the New Testament told us He was. His work does not have the kind of universal and eternal consequences that the New Testament theology teaches. Creation is important both for reality and that the real world is controlled by God. Christ the Agent of Creation is also our Redeemer. If you eviscerate a solid biblical doctrine of creation, the religion becomes unreal and Christ is diminished.

Q. Why is there so little connection between Christ and creation in modern day preaching?

A. I think there are two or three factors involved. I believe that evangelical theologians and commentators since the late 1800's have tended to avoid creation because of its controversial nature. There has been the rather uncritical acceptance of the assumptions of vast ages of the universe and of some form of evolutionary theory by most evangelicals. Dr. Nigel Cameron who is now at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School wrote a book in 1983 Evolution and the Authority of the Bible. He surveys the evangelical commentaries in the late 19th century and finds there is only one - Thomas Scott's - that hadn't caved in to some form of evolution. Therefore most ministers have come out of ministries and institutions that have accepted some form of evolutionary thinking. Obviously that is going to take away one's zeal for the glory of the Creator; if what He did is considerably less than what we are told in Genesis.

A second reason might be that there is a tendency among us ministers to see practical results. There is nothing wrong with that. I do as much as anyone. There can be a hesitancy to preach the whole range of biblical doctrine because you might feel that some doctrines might be too hard for people to understand or the doctrines do not get a good response or are too divisive. An example is the critique of evolutionary thinking. Thus many avoid it.

Q. Regarding creation, some reformed denominations are receiving men who believe that Genesis is poetic. What is some argumentation that elders can use to confront this view?

A. First let me recommend In the Beginning by Edward J. Young, published by Banner of Truth a few years ago. He was an authority of massive erudition in the Semitic languages. He discusses this matter. In the 60's when he wrote this he said that evangelicals were hesitant to enter the lists with people that accepted evolution. Thus they said that Genesis 1-3 was poetic and not meant to be taken as serious chronological history. Therefore they could have peace with the other point of view.

E. J. Young says that there are poetic accounts of creation in Scripture such as Ps. 104 and certain passages in Job. Such characteristics of Hebrew poetry are not found in Genesis 1-3. One of the marks is heavy parallelism as in the Psalms such as synthetic and antithetic parallelism. Such parallelism is not found in Genesis 1-3. These chapters are written as straight chronological history.

My colleague at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Dr. John Currid wrote an excellent article a few years ago in which he shows that the five or six characteristics of Hebrew poetry are not found in Genesis 1-3.

The great Jewish scholar, now deceased, Issac Cassuto did, I think, the finest single commentary I have ever seen on Genesis. It was translated into English in l961. He says the creation account is the way the Hebrew mind wrote history. The writer gives the broad picture in Genesis 1 and then isolates a portion and expands upon it in Genesis 2. This approach is not the method found in the Hellenistic and western intellectual tradition of writing history.

Q. Another critique laymen may hear is that past reformed scholars such as B. B. Warfield did not hold to a six-day (24 hours) creation view.

A. That is a true statement. Reformed scholars beginning in the mid 19th century felt the pressure in the shift in the intellectual world to the belief that geology had proven a massive age of physical structures in the physical world and in the solar system. The reformed scholars perhaps did not have the same alternative explanation to help them critique as some of us do today. They tried to preserve the truth claims of Scripture but make some kind of allowance for vast ages as did Thomas Chalmers of the Free Church of Scotland. That began to influence Charles Hodge somewhat. However Hodge very clearly came out strongly against Darwinism in 1874. He wrote What Is Darwinism? Therein he said that Darwinism is basically Satanism. Hodge was not an evolutionist. In his later years however he felt it necessary to make an allowance for an ancient earth because he thought the information that was coming in at that time was fairly conclusive.

Green, one of his successors at Princeton, was for an old earth. He felt that evolution was receiving so strong a testimony in science as for instance McKosh's support. McKosh was the head of Princeton and an evolutionist from Scotland. So Green wrote on the genealogies of Genesis, trying to lengthen them out and allow for an ancient earth. Warfield, a student of Green's, did the same. He would, I think, have allowed for some form of theistic evolution although Warfield was very conservative, one of our greatest scholars.

In his lifetime he did not have any serious challenges to this scientific paradigm. Therefore he felt he had to accommodate it. This has been the story with many of our best reformed scholars. Without wishing to disparage their great work in other areas, I think we have to say that we regret that they did not raise enough questions about those people who question the veracity of the word of God at these points. We do have considerable information available to us that they did not have to help us answer these questions.

Q. It is also a reminder that men are prone to error. We have to ultimately return to Scripture for our answers not just rely on the work of godly scholars.

A. Yes. That is perhaps what Christ meant when he said, "Call no man ‘Father’."

Q. Looking at Scripture there seems to be much internal evidence for a 24 hour day. If ‘day’ is not literal then the passage may not be literal itself.

A. Right.

Q. What is the meaning of the word ‘day’ in Gen. 2:4?

A. It is referring to the first day of creation on which God created all things out of nothing- all things visible and invisible as the Nicene Creed states. The remaining days are, as the German theologian Von Rad states, the turning of a chaos into a cosmos. [Alternatively it is merely an idiomatic way of saying ‘when’.]

Q. In Gen 5:5 we read "So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died." In Gen. 5:8 we read, "So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died." Thus the time comparison between the two life spans was based on the same increments of time. [note that the ‘days’ these men lived were ordinary days: a whole lot of them, formed into definite other periods called years. The days remain normal days.]

A. I think that is clearly true. It is definite in Hebrew that when you have an ordinal accompanying the word "day" it always means a normal solar day. If in the Bible anywhere "day" means something else the immediate context makes that perfectly clear. For example, in 2 Peter 3:8 we read that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The context clearly shows that "day" is a long period of time. [On the contrary, the normal day is used as a comparison; it tells us that God is not constrained as we are by time. If the day here was a long period it would make the comparison nonsensical.] It would be the worst form of isogesis to read that meaning back into Genesis 1 where "day" has ordinals in a specific series. The creation account sets the order for our lives. Are we to work 6000 years and rest 1000 years?

The Fourth commandment also points this out in Ex.20:8ff. The Sabbath is very clearly a normal solar day. Six days of work and one day of rest is the normal pattern.

I think the evidence is preponderant that "day" means a twenty-four hour day. The famous Hebrew Old Testament linguistic professor of Oxford University, Dr. James Barr was no conservative. He wrote the book Fundamentalism attacking conservative Christianity although he came out of that sort of background himself. He wrote a letter to David C. C. Watson in 1984. I have a copy of that letter. In it he says that no world class scholar in any major university that he is aware of thinks that the writer of Genesis intended the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day. Now he doesn't agree with the truth claims of Scripture. He is saying that we must be honest when we interpret Scripture and say that the writer meant 24 hour days.

Q. If we follow the reformed hermeneutic of Scripture interpreting Scripture then we can come to no other interpretation than that of a six day (24 hours each) creation. To deny six day creation is also to deny this interpretive principle.

A. I fear that if we loosen our moorings to the clear teaching of Scripture in these early chapters of Genesis we have brought in a principle that when the basic teachings of Scripture go against the culture then you go with the culture.

Q.Your forthcoming book is on changing paradigms. Could you elaborate on that theme?

A. I take the subtitle from the famous work of Thomas S. Kuhn (University of Chicago) who in 1970 published his classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Therein he speaks about a paradigm shift. Science proceeds not on an even uphill line but in terms of revolutions in which one paradigm (which is a world view, model or explanation of reality) is in a sort of revolutionary way replaced by another. This new paradigm is contradictory to many aspects of the former but contains all the same facets though from a different point of view.

The reason the old paradigm eventually goes defunct is because anomalies or questions are raised with it that cannot be answered in light of the basic paradigm. Kuhn gives illustrations in the history of science such as the old phlogistic theory of fire which finally just could not accommodate all the evidence. Another very different theory arose. This has happened many times in science.

Only time will tell if I am right. I am proposing that since so many problems are now being raised against the scientific empirical possibilities of the evolutionary mechanism even from non-Christian scholars, it is becoming increasingly difficult for evolutionary science to maintain intellectual standing because it cannot answer these questions.

I am thinking that we are in a transition time. If believing scientists of which there are many will continue to do their homework well and if people will learn what they can, the pressure may come that in another 40-50 years from now there may be an intellectual revolution that causes the old evolutionary paradigm to be replaced by the creationist paradigm or perhaps some other paradigm.

Fred Hoyle of Oxford and Wickransinghe wrote a book entitled Evolution from Outer Space in which they say evolution is preposterous. Professor Wickransinghe has flown over here from the British Isles to be a witness on the creationist side in some cases, such as a recent one in Louisiana. Even as a Buddhist he is willing to stand on the side of creation because evolution is such bad science. Now their paradigm would not be one of Biblical creation. Thus I do not know which paradigm will replace it. I do believe the evolutionary paradigm has got to go.

Professor Phillip E. Johnson of the University of California is showing in his books that evolution is intellectually bankrupt. He is not a young earth man but he does believe in creation. He shows that evolution is dogma, not science.

Q. Could you list two or three books that you think are important- books that parents could use with their children- teaching them how to counter evolutionary teaching?

A. A very helpful book by Phillip E. Johnson, Evolution As Dogma is approximately 40 pages and very helpful. Another book Pandas and People by Davis and Kenyon examines empiric evidence against any possibility of evolution. It is intended for use as a supplement to high school biology textbooks. The authors asked evolutionists to critique the book. They interact with them. They try to be fair. There is no mudslinging. That book is being used in many public schools as a supplementary text. It has been translated into Russian and is in wide use there.

A somewhat older work, but still a valid one, is Henry M. Morris' Evolution and the Modern Christian- particularly in regards to the two laws of thermodynamics. It is written at a popular and accurate level.

Paul Ackerman's It's A Young World After All is popularly written Some of its chapters are uneven but it is thought provoking and of use to parents regarding the age of the earth.

Q. Your book should be available by the end of 1997?

A. That is right. The book will have questions at the end of each chapter. I hope to have a study guide for use with it for Christian school and home school youth.

Q. It should also be of use in Sunday Schools and Bible study groups.

A. That is right. It will also be useful for pastors and seminary students.

Q. We will look forward to the book's publication. Thank you very much for this interview.

A. God bless you.

Why I believe in God (Peter Jensen)

This piece was published in my church's newsletter for 31 July 2011, attributed to the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen.

I was asked recently about the reasons for belief and even more to the point, why I believe in God. I'm sure there are more, but here are ten of the factors which have created my belief in God.
First, the fact that he believes in me. That is, I have not found God at the end of a stringent enquiry into the nature of the universe. He found me, wandering as i was, and he revealed himself to me. It was his revelation, not my interrogation.
Second, the fact that his revelation was a public one. That is, it is not my private possession. When God revealed himself it was like the sun shining. As Jesus said, "I am the light of the world". Looking for God without looking at Jesus is like playing football without a ball—like seeing without insight.
Third, the fact that his revelation was a personal one. I do not believe in God because I have a superior intellect or am a better person. It is because God illumined my understanding by his spirit [sic-no capital 's'] as I looked at the person and work of Jesus Christ. God has to be God in the way in which I come to know him.
Fourth, I found that his revelation makes sense of the Bible. Overall, the Bible contains god's preparation for Jesus and then his fulfilment in Jesus. His preparation was more than sufficient to create a God believing people. The God they believed in was a God who made and then kept his promises; made promises and kept promises of an extraordinary nature. The most extraordinary, God-like keeping of promises is in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Fifth, I see that the worship of Jesus is a reality in the world. Everywhere people have treated him as God and seek to obey him. From that point of view it is no use asking is there a God—clearly there is. His kingdom is in the world. The actual question is, what sort of God? Is he a God whom I should worship?
Sixth, I judge that the worship of God makes best sense of the world. The standard human belief that there are many gods makes no sense of the unity of the world. The recently popular belief that there is no God makes no sense of the morality and beauty of the world. The belief that there is one remote God who cannot enter his own world makes no sense of the love in the world. The belief that Jesus Christ bore the burden of the sins of the world makes best sense, especially of a world of pain and suffering.
Seventh, I judge that believing in this God makes the best sense of history. I do not believe that history is circular, infinitely repeating itself. I do not believe that history will have no end. Believing in the God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ explains the nature of the human experience of living in time and enables us to have the hope which give [sic] meaning.
Eighth, I judge that belief in God makes best sense of what I see in the community. The will of God expressed in the law of God is a tremendous positive force for good. The will of God followed by men and women is wholesome and life-giving. It creates generosity and public virtue. It frees people from such crippling vices as gambling and substance abuse.
Ninth, because I know that belief in God makes the best sense of what I experience in my own life. I have learned long ago that I am a weak and faulty creature, prone to error and vulnerable to pain. God and belief in God spares me some things because his law guards me against things which are harmful. I am not spared from the ordinary conditions of life in a world such as this. But I have found that in the midst of the trials of the world, the love of God is manifested in ways which assure and re-assure.
Tenth, because I know God. The way we have asked the question skews it a little. Our belief is intellectual but it is not merely intellectual; it is personal. To quote and old pro verb, God is not a problem to be solved but a person to be known.

My comment

Now, there're a lot of interesting angles there; and together, they make strong case, I think.
I was, however, quite struck by his avoiding the basic ground that the Bible sets out for belief in God, and indeed, his worship: that he is creator! I think, immediately, of course, of Romans 1:20 and that he grounds his revelation and sets his covenant relationship is the world that he has made.

Speed

I recently heard a discussion that one of the indicators of God's being creator, and not the cosmos itself being its own 'creator', or processes within the cosmos being required to give effect to God's fiats in Genesis 1, is the parsimony of action implied in Genesis 1.

That is, a clear result of intelligence brought to bear is the economy of effort that is applied.

This is echoed in a number of passages in the Bible:

The centurion's servant is one. The centurion expected instant results from Jesus' command, just as he expected from his troops.

There are also examples in the Psalms:

Psalm 33:8-10: he spoke and it happened!

Psalm 148:5: same as above!

Genesis 1 itself indicates parsimony of causative effort: God spoke...and it was so!

I don't think this leaves much room for setting aside the implications of rapidity in Genesis 1.

Bavink, Lankshear and myth

Recently, searching my emails I came across this letter from 3 years ago: in Internet time, this is ancient history, of course, and what fun to share it.

William,

Bavink in "In the Beginning" makes the observation that materialism leads to occultism, and points to the late 19th C when it did just that... I'll hunt up the quote as its quite pithy.

Along those lines, thinking about Lankshear's jumble of ideas; particularly his joining of EE [Enuma Elish] and Gen 1: it seems that his fundamental take on reality in referring to a mythical view as having credibility; that is, an a-historical tale being able to meld with what is historical (or at least factual; as he seems to think for some reason that God is creator), must itself be mythical.

He is letting a source that is outside biblical revelation structure his world view... what is that source? Well, it could be either purely materialist (maybe provide links to Gisler's JETS paper on beware of philosophies and Mortensen's The Master's Seminary Journal paper on materialism and age of earth; I can give links if you don't have them) which means that he is judging the bible on the basis of a view that denies the world view of the bible: that is, a view that says "there is no god'; 'material is all there is' and 'man has no moral, generative or epistemological relationships outside himself' that is, is ethically and actually independent. So; Lankshear appears to base his thinking, at least by default' on this world view and uses it to analyse the Bible; from the get go he has prejudiced his thinking.

Alternatively, his view might be that consequence of materialism: mythological: that there are factors to consider that are not principally material, but have arisen culturally as a response by the imaginatively powerful to their situation in the material world...which reduces entertainingly to 'mere fiction'. If myth is a cultural response to a historical situation, then its interesting, but probably unimportant... Lankshear is then using the unimportant to assess the credibility of the Bible!

Another thing about ANE and other myths, they all take the cosmos as a given; effectively; even if they pretend to be a true cosmogony; they are not, as in EE they are either a theogony, or a story of the origin of something within the cosmos, not of the cosmos and its ontological implications for us...so, myths are pretty skinny; and they do not allow us to build anything of substance; thus mythologically referenced cultures have not produced natural science; nor objective history.

On this last point, he fails also to understand the critical importance in Jewish culture of objective history: Jewish thought regards objective history with bedrock importance; it is not a mythological culture at all, but a concretely historical one; for it to base this on a myth is both absurd and incoherent: cultures do not and cannot build objective historically referred structures on mythological foundations: the Jews have done the reverse: their culture is objectively historical and concretely real down to day 1.

Once Lankshear manages to reflect on the structure of his thought world he might be able to adopt a biblical noetical frame of reference which would instantly eliminate the explanatory dead ends of materialism and its cousin mythology.

BTW, I'll lend you Bavink: he's old fashioned (well...just old) but has some great ideas, including a wonderful logical critique of Darwinism as it then was.

Southern Baptists

I've mentioned Al Mohler's work in previous posts.

Al has written a goodly amount on the matter of origins on his blog.

Here are some links:

The Futility of Theistic Evolution

Christianity and Evolution: Seeing the Problem

Creation vs. Evolution: The New Shape of the Debate

Evolution on the Mind

Should we really thank God for evolution?


The Buzzing Fly: Why the Creation-Evolution Debate is So Important

The Christian World View as Master Narrative: Creation

Mohler on Hawking on Creation

Mohler on Ruse on Creation'ism'

A darwinian compendium.

A knight of the mind.

Darwin's dog.

You'll get the idea!

God and Science

This letter appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today (16 July 2011)

God and science
Mike Phillips (Letters, July 15) suggests that Tony Maher has engaged in cherry picking of his beliefs and that there is an inconsistency between accepting climate change science on the one hand and belief in a creator god on the other.
As many theistic scientists will attest, it's a false dichotomy to pit God against science. Scientific inquiry looks at the world and how it works, while theology looks behind the curtain and wonders why it all exists to begin with.
One might look at how the world began, the other at why and by whom the world began. The two disciplines ask and answer completely different questions about life.
Cherry picking? I don't think so. But Mike Phillips might be comparing apples with oranges.
Andrew Miers Bardwell Valley

Phillips' letter rightly identified the foundation of Christian theism (although without using that term) being that God is creator. Oddly, he sees the significance of this cornerstone idea or doctrine, while many teachers of the church fail to understand it, leading at best, in many cases to views such as Miers' above.

Miers and others who see a spilt between what happened and what it means are philosophically out of tune with the Bible's world concept, and theologically under-done when it comes to discussion of origins. The Bible is very clear that what happened is the basis for the significance of what happened (the 'why' that Miers notes). There is no split in the Bible's framing of the world of thought and event so that 'meaning' is carried on a different plane to causal continuity. Certainly the Bible insists that 'word' is necessary, but you may note, that the word with respect to origins is about what happened in causal continuity, and not other than what happened.

Phillips gets it: if the Bible is not to be trusted when it deals with events in causal continuity, then what it derives human significance from is but a fiction, and the 'really real' events, and their inherent meaning, are otherwise, and God is divided! A house divided, of course, is a house bound to fall, particularly when theologians set out to divide what God has conjoined.

Phillips knows that it is 'God of the real world' that Christianity has in mind; he just disbelieves. Miers on the other hand seems to think that Christian faith is in a God of other than the real world: disconnected, not Elohim who connects with us, or draws worship from us because he is creator of the real that we are in!

For the sake of brevity I won't go through the flowering of modern science in the rich bed of Christian theology and belief, including the face-value reading of Genesis 1.

Un-knowledge

The application of symbolism to critical biblical passages remains an interesting thing to contemplate.

Going on from my earlier post,

There is a major problem in attempts to cast the early chapters of Genesis as other than having the meaning of their face reading; particularly noting that the face reading is set in terms of of the causality of the world of our being and experience (coordination points are in the chronological alignment, the pattern of causality that is identical our experience, the continuity of space-time between the Genesis 1-3 depiction of the world and ours, and the uniformity of relationships between that depiction and ours, for example).

The problem is that unfooting Genesis 1 unfoots the understanding of our origin, relationships and sin (particularly the relationship with God) that only can come from Genesis 1.

The claim that G1 is mythic, or symbolic (which amounts to the same thing) immediately removes the information-content that it would otherwise convey. This means that the origin of all things, of our relationship with God (both made, in Genesis 1:27? and broken in Genesis 3:n, and fore-redeemed (Genesis 3:n), and our self-identity are not known, if they are not factual in the only account we have.

Then to explain sin, for example (but also to explain anything else in these chapters), becomes problematic. To understand the claims of scripture people must know the real connections that did, do and will affect them; they mythic connections will not do this, as people's lives are lived, challenged, enjoyed and frustrated in the real world, not the uninformative mythic one from whence comes at best metaphors of the real world. So is we can't show a 'real-world' engagement that explains our situation and all its dimensions, then it does not provide for us to understand our position.

This has a pastoral aspect.

If a person grappling to understand sin and God's redemptive response is told that sin is only explained in the Bible in symbolic terms, then the person can ask "then where did it really come from?" And how would we know? If G1 doesn't tells us what really happened, then what did really happen, and how would we know? Are we therefore really linked to God as G1 says, and do we really bear God's image, or is that just an ex-post facto hope for significance and meaning? The person could well ask, what is 'really real' and the 'real' point of reference for our existential position. If G1 is relegated to the symbolic, then the person would well look to materialism as the final reference point: materialism which eliminates God and the existential position would be the tissue of nonsense that Camus, Satre et al would leave us.

The unwitting, or perhaps just unacknowledged reference made when G1 is regarded as symbolic is that the world as we know it becomes 'a given' not created, and the result of itself, not of will. Alternatively it defaults to an implicit materialism which provides that true knowledge about the world in its totality (our world as experienced) leaves God out, as a not quite real figure; linking only through the tendrils of symbol, not the stout columns of what is real. So he's not really part of our world, but is set more in pagan terms, being an element of a prior world: the world as given, as Enuma Elish, for instance, assumes.

The odium of theistic-evolution

What is so odious about theistic-evolution, I think, is that it makes a represenetation of God, with respect to origins, that diverges from the representation God makes of himself through the creative actions; actions that are linked to who he is (Romans 1:20).

In saying that 'no, God didn't do that, but he did something else that not he but I tell you.' it is saying that God is different from how he has communicated himself, and the relationship of God to creation is not what the Bible sets out.

This arises, I think, in part from the thrall of modern materialism, but partly out of a misplaced idealism descended from ancient Greece, where 'god' is too exulted to have any real connection with the material.

But this is not Christianity. God has provided the material world as not only the setting, but as part of his covenant with man, as him who is in God's image, the steward of the creation, to whose redemption the 'whole creation' looks.

The theological trouble with theistic evolution

The trouble with theistic evolution (or Christian Darwinism) is that it says something about God that is different from what God says about God.

It makes a different relationship between God's words and actions from that which God states.

Adios theory

Published in the Sydney Morning Herald 25 June 2011: trouble is Lyell was right...adios theory!

4 big moves

I recently re-listened to Al Mohler's address on the age of the universe at a recent Ligoner Ministeries Conference.

In it he remarked that the Bible has four essential movements that condition the span of action between God and man: creation, fall, redemption and new creation.

These are four moments in the relation between God and us, where God's actions are material in the relationship.

And the relationship parameters are isotropic. That is, the zone of contact doesn't shift between them: sometimes metaphor, sometimes imaginary, sometimes real-world. They all must be real world and interact with our life-perspective, our experience as subjects, uniformly. Some cannot be appraised as 'lets agree this is important' (myth), and others as 'this occupies unique space in the time-space zone that effects and constrains my actions, choices and life-perspective'.

But even more, the zone of contact is action by God.

Most of the views of the account in Genesis 1 that depart from the direct meaning also seem to set aside that this is God telling us what he has done. Him describing the actions through which he represents himself to us in an unavoidably meaningfully tangible manner. It is not some artful allusion to 'teach that God is creator' but is the sequence of things that he did, being creator by which he communicates himself to us, and demonstrates that his claim to being creator is not empty, but delivered! So its 'personal'. Most of what I've read seems to want to de-personalise the account; yet the Bible is all about God's actions towards his creation, within his creation to the end of the new creation; once it is denied that he can give information about his acts, or that they occur in terms of different parameters from all his other acts, and from how acts 'work' (with causal continuity and contingency) in the time-space creation, then we don't have God's telling us about himself at all, but about someone/thing else. Strange way for one who is love to operate then. Does one write to a friend to tell him what one didn't do, or what one did do, as genuine self-revelation?

A friend made this comment in response to the above:

Interesting to note that when Philip said to our Lord Jesus "Lord show us the Father and that will be enough for us." The Lord Jesus replied with "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father...at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

The historical evidence of the Lord Jesus' recreative acts gave testimony of who he is; and so the evidence of God's creative acts giving testimony to who the creator is. Undo one, and you undo the other.