SBC: A Fly in the Soup
John on June 15, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I’ve been part of more than one Southern Baptist church. The first one was in Blacksburg, VA which for all intents and purposes was a deep-south, traditional SBC church. They had a nice looking facility that held about 150 people. When I got there some time in 1988 the long-time pastor had just retired. The associate, who was a young, whip-smart guy from New York, was put in charge while a search committee found the new pastor.
All of the students who attended this church wanted the associate pastor to stay. He was energetic and sharp; his messages gave you something to take notes on. Eventually the church brought in an older pastor in his 50s who, having apparently had a recent midlife crisis, drove a red sports car to church. His messages were low on content but chock full of the kind of southern charm and boisterous affirmations that the older crowd seemed to adore. They didn’t want to connect with students. They may have said they did, but when it came down to it, they wanted to feel comfortable in the church they’d built. It was theirs, not ours.
When I joined a southern baptist church here in California years later, it was very different. Originally formed within a few blocks of the beach, this church had no dress code and messages that were more topical than affirmational. I liked it immediately and after six years got a job working there. Things seemed to be going well. We were growing and began looking for land. We found it and built phase one of an ambitious development plan.
It was about this time that things started to get weird. Though our church would never be mistaken for southern baptist by and “real” baptists from the south, it maintained enough connection to the convention to be aware what was going on back East. So when the seminaries began their attack on “postmodernism” (whatever that meant at the moment) my pastor saw much of it as a cultural battle. Some of the things the conservatives railed against (topical messages, humor, etc.) were the sorts of things Jesus did. In any case, being out in California we felt well out of the fight.
But at some level, I guess we weren’t out of it. The pastor picked up a book by DA Carson and became an expert on “emergent” overnight. Then, it seemed all of a sudden to me, we had endless preaching on authority and Calvinism. For four months straight every message dealt with one of these two topics. It was as if the pastor had decided he needed to make up for 18 years of not focusing on these two topics enough.
Then he fired the church secretary. Weeks later he put the youth pastor (who’d recently gotten his first tattoo) on notice that he needed to start looking for a new job. Then a couple months later he fired the worship pastor (a partial preterist), who also happened to be my best friend. I was asked to stay, but it was pretty clear that was a formality. I found out later he’d already talked to people about replacing me.
I bring all this up because this report at Christianity Today reminded me of these experiences. It’s conveying the bad news from the latest SBC annual convention, at which much emphasis was placed on the denomination’s apparent decline:
- 419,342: Baptisms in Southern Baptist churches in 1999.
- 345,941: Baptisms in 2007.
- 5.5%: Drop in baptisms between 2007 and 2006.
- 3: The number of consecutive years in which baptism numbers have dropped in the SBC.
- 22: Number of years that outgoing president Frank Page says it will take, given current trends, for the SBC to lose half its churches (from about 44,000 to 20,000).
The bigwigs of the SBC have reacted exactly like you’d expect SBC bigwigs to react. It’s a failure of discipline. Not enough stress on fundamentals. Not enough focus on personal evangelism. The SBC, at heart, has a managerial outlook. If something isn’t going well, it’s always because the “employees” are too lax. Get serious! Get to work! I recently learned of one local SBC church which has annual baptism quotas for staff. Apparently the Holy Spirit needs an incentive to keep numbers up.
What you won’t hear the bigwigs say, not ever, is that the conservative triumph in the SBC in the last decade has weakened the organization as a whole. What they have now are churches and seminaries full of like-minded people who don’t understand why fewer and fewer people want to join. Clearly the numbers indicate a problem, but instead of looking in the mirror, they’ll blame it on the “coarsening culture” or “weak leadership.”
Of course I don’t believe the real problem is the culture or the effort level. I believe it’s the menu. Not the main dish, but all the side items we’ve saddled it with. Even today, surprisingly few people are put off by Jesus and his message. Richard Dawkins, in his jeremiad against faith titled The God Delusion, largely ignores Jesus, as if he were peripheral to Christianity. This seemed very strange to me, but the more I thought about it I began to feel he was, inadvertently, on to something.
It’s the twenty-first century, and with the exception of flying cars, our world has exceeed what many of our own grandfathers could have imagined. So when a large portion of the populace balks at young-earth creationism and the imminent rapture, well, perhaps we should stop being surprised. When did these things get added to the menu in the first place? Perhaps this is one case where we need to stop offering the combo. Stop upselling the Gospel into the “Biggie Size” monstrosity many evangelical churches are offering. This is what’s so ironic about the current declines at the conservative SBC. Some genuine “fundamentalism” would be a vast improvement.
But like many religious sects (going back to Masada, I suppose) the knee-jerk conservatives in the seminaries would rather die fighting for every jot and tittle of the true doctrine (and that means everything including the superiority of grape juice these days) than compromise. And if we can’t admit that Jesus drank real wine, we certainly won’t be compromising with any icky, unbelieving scientists on something like the age of the earth or [shudder!] evolution.
Unfortunately for the SBC, what looks like standing strong for the faith among those dutifully manning the parapets looks a lot like ignorance abetted by arrogance to much of the rest of the world. The result is, well…the figures speak for themselves. Clearly a moment of reflection is in order. I suppose it could yet occur to the someone in charge that the problem and it’s solution aren’t methodological after all. Perhaps this is what you get when you try to purge all diversity of thought from the body. Is it really helping the church when accomplished people like Howard Van Till and, more recently, Peter Enns, are hounded out of work because they don’t toe a particular theological line? Didn’t we just have a movie about this sort of thing called Expelled?
One high-profile member of my old church said of those of us who’d left that God was “spitting out the salt.” I’ve often thought this little theological malapropism had a lot of truth to it. And what’s true on the small scale is, I suspect, true of the SBC as a whole. If the numbers are any indication, the denomination appears to have lost a lot of flavor in recent years. The SBC response seems to be to crank up the effort. But to return to my already over-extended menu metaphor, I think the solution to this problem sounds a lot less like gearing up for another round of ideological purging and more like…
Waiter, there’s a fly in my soup!
Category: Religion & Faith |
Religion, and Christianity in particular, seems to be so prone to things like this. Calvin, Luther, Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Just think of all the Protestant versions of Christianity, and things spun off that don’t even sound Christian to me, an atheist. It also tends to come with new knowledge and new learning. Luther was spread by the new technology of print, and the ability of more to actually read the copies of that Nailed Note.
June 15, 2008 @ 5:31 pmIs there anything that causes more strife and schism? Well, yes. Politics. Like Politics, you have your Conservatives, too many of whom wish nothing would ever change(like the old timers lamenting the end of Latin Mass) and the Liberals, who would change things to the point of failure of the system, and third, the position of most of the people, which lay somewhere in between the two extremes.
In politics, once things get bad enough (at least here in the good ol’ USA) people will correct what is wrong, or adjust it closer to what is right (one hopes). But what of Religion? How does one tell someone their version of worship is the wrong one? I’m not talking about the extremes like FLDS and Marrying off 13 and 14 year old girls, driving out most of the boys, because well, if not, they’d be competition for said females. I’m talking about Anglicans and Catholics etc. The early COE was formed simply on the whim of a rather vain Monarch, and yet they claimed they were the “Real” Catholic Church” and the Pope et al, were the ones that wandered astray. Add Predestination, Calvinism, Remonstrants, Counter-Remonstrants, Puritans, Anabaptists. . . egad. It’s a wonder the populace didn’t become Free Thinkers just out of spite.
They still may if we keep majoring on the minors. Meanwhile, atheism can provide surprisingly little argument against loving one’s neighbor.
June 15, 2008 @ 7:26 pmJohn…sorry to hear of your hassles. Unfortunately, church conflicts seem all too common.
I do think your focus on YEC is a bit off. If you look at the stats for the U.S. populace, YEC is actually the most common point of view, with OEC(including ID) and Theistic Evolution making up the lions share of the remainder, leaving pure evolution as a poor minority. It may be wildly different for California though, but I hardly think this can be a good reason for the decline across all of the U.S.
That being said, too much a focus on the Creation/Evolution debate or any other particular topic can still be a problem. My own church has only touched on creation/evolution a couple of times in the last 5 years. There just isn’t a huge range of personal applications for the message, so constantly harping on it hardly seems useful.
The article you linked to said that the SBC has only had a membership decline in 2 out of the last 10 years (and not the last 2 years), so I’m not sure this shows a spiralling trend. (Not that losing members is necessarily a bad thing either…but that’s a whole different question)
June 15, 2008 @ 7:59 pmJP – Yep, politics should be avoided completely. As for religion and denominations, they will kill as well. Anyone who places his faith in a denomination or religion will die eternally, there is no life in them.
It all boils down to what Jesus Himself said, “Who do you say that I AM?”. The answer to that question will determine our eternal destiny, even while we accurately point out the myriad of human inconsistencies and hypocricies. Chronicling man’s nuanced and multi-layered hypocricies is like removing the ocean with a thimble.
But making a pronouncement of faith concerning Jesus the Christ, one way or another, is on an individual basis untethered from any and all hypocricies of others.
June 15, 2008 @ 9:37 pmAlan,
YEC is common among Christians. In my view that’s a problem because it’s clearly not supported by the science. Perhaps if it was rarely talked about this wouldn’t matter but when people like MacArthur make it a first line issue, they are basically creating a stumbling block for those who otherwise might enter the church.
I had dinner with Hugh Ross recently (not just me it was through school). He told us that when he saw people converted out of secular areas like Silicon Valley, the local churches would actually tell him they didn’t want his converts (because they weren’t young earth). He mentioned having a friend who was asked to leave three different churches when they found out he was an astronomer who had old earth views. I think the SBC and the church in general would be a lot better off if we’d just stop fighting losing battles.
June 15, 2008 @ 9:54 pmJohn – anything is possible, including the 24 hour creation day. However what a ridiculous battle to wage which is not addressed in the New Testament.
As a fellow astronomer, a cannot get over this:
When we see a super nova explosion from a star 1 million light years away, that event would not have actually taken place. If the earth is 5000 years old, that super nova event would have been just a created light show by God that represents a non-event.
Why would the Creator have done that?
June 15, 2008 @ 10:10 pmJohn – I went through something similar at a church with Baptist roots. When the younger generation saw that there was no room for them in the future of the church, they left.
I appreciate my current church’s focus on “leaving an inheritance” by which it is meant that those leading the church today are building upon that which was given them by the last generation and that what is built is being given to the next.
I have noticed that even though the old and the young in my church don’t always see eye to eye, that there is no power struggle, but a genuine desire to work together to build the body of the church today in preparation for the body of the church tomorrow.
June 16, 2008 @ 2:03 amDenominational groupings (SBC’s or whoever) tend to have well fixed ideas about what is and what is not truth. Being right or wrong is not the issue. The attitude they have about it is.
When I first started going to church I knew nothing but Jesus and was truly relieved that He actually loved me, accepted me and forgave me. The problem was, I was immediately required to espouse (not believe – that happens on the inside and requires a little more depth – espousal involves a public vow which can be done very easily as a cover up) and live by certain ideas.
Did I make the vow? Yes, without hesitation! My whole acceptance by people was based on this immediate commitment to concepts I had never heard before (what in the world is tithing?!?! Scary) and I couldn’t afford to be rejected by people even if God had accepted me unconditionally.
Time has gone by and I have had opportunity to think through the issues. Not much of what I was originally taught has changed but now I can tell you “why” I believe it. But it took me years to get there.
The disciples were never on the same page with Jesus. His ideas were alien to them but never once did Jesus pass them a list of ideas to which they needed to subscribe. And their traininig was hardly finished when Jesus ascended into heaven. The Book of Acts is, among other things, a list of mistakes the disciples made and the lessons they still had to learn. Their example actually proves that discipleship is really kind of messy.
For me, what has changed is my perspective and attitude. I have a differen spirit toward people and a different way of managing the issues. I can now spend more time caring and less time being prescriptive. I enjoy the dialogue more these days. In fact, I participate in an atheist blog just because they are more open to discussion. Nice people, really.
Do I drink? Not really other than the very very occasional glass of wine (half glass really, please don’t tell anyone) but I wouldn’t mind having a whole church full of wine sippers (you can have the guzzlers). This represents a huge shift for me.
I once wrote a booklet on the ills of drinking alcoholic beverages. When I was finished I put it in an obscure corner of my library hoping no one would accidentally find it. Why? Not because it was poorly written (it wouldn’t be recognized for journalistic excellence – no Nobel Prizes on the horizon – but it wasn’t badly written).
I put it away because I reallized it was a waste of time. The government already regulated the manufacture and consumption of alcohol fiercely and there were policeman assigned to enforce the laws diligently. I was a bit arrogant to think I could add a bit more value or do the job better.
And, unfortunately, in my experience, the jerks who stop drinking, even an occasional glass of vino, are still jerks. They are actually more palatable when under the influence.
These days I am attending a pastors meeting which includes men from several kinds of churches (please don’t let that out of the bag – I’ve already been branded and tagged enough). Do I agree absolutely with these people (does anyone agree with anyone absolutely??)? No, but I do recognize their strong commitment to Jesus Christ and His purposes. We have that in common. They deserve my respect.
And for the record the SBC’s can be boring beyond description. A local religious channel (South Africa) will broadcast various church services several of which are from the States. One evening when there was nothing else on TV we watched a pre-recorded service of a very large SB Church. I almost cried. It was stale, wooden, stiff, rigid and what else can I say. I’m not suggesting they are bad people. But they were horribly ineffective. I can understand why people are walking.
I’ve rambled enough. Better go. Very pertinent post John.
June 16, 2008 @ 8:20 amI think you are being awfully gracious John in defining this as a malapropism. I think this person was speaking out of arrogance, and the words were chosen very carefully, if not rehearsed.
June 16, 2008 @ 11:04 amThis is Satan’s desire for every church, and in the case of John’s former churches (and unfortunately many others), it seems to be a desire fulfilled.
June 16, 2008 @ 2:18 pmJohn,
OEC and Theistic Evolution is also mostly supported by Christians, so that is a bit of a red herring comment. You could also say that OEC (progressive creation etc) is not supported by the science (which is indeed what the Christian theistic evolutionists claim – and indeed many of the same reasons used to criticize evolution also apply to old age science beliefs).
That being said, I am absolutely shocked someone would be turned away from a congregation based on this issue. It’s horrifying really. Creation/Evolution is independent of a persons salvific status…It is of course a question of biblical interpretation, which is still important, just not something to kick someone out over.
Whilst people may disagree over these issues, I think it healthy to discuss them, as there are many valid points and arguments on both sides that help to sharpen us in loving God with our mind as well as our hearts…
I wouldn’t call anything a losing battle if God is involved. All respect to Rick, but the distant starlight problem is a problem for people who think the universe is 14 billion years old too….it is merely swept under the rug with the ad hoc ‘inflationary’ period.
June 16, 2008 @ 11:21 pmAlan,
I take your point, though I think the average person will find these views exist on a spectrum from “hard to swallow” on down to “very possible.” I don’t mean to make this personal at all, but I think YEC is an unnecessary (and increasingly heavy) millstone around our collective necks. I’ve no doubt the church would find many more people receptive to a message that was either some flavor of Old Earth or completely agnostic on the issue.
On that we’re in complete agreement. I’m just pointing out that there are significant portions of the church today that don’t see it that way, most of them seem to hold to a literal young-earth view. Hugh Ross still gets picketed and has engagements canceled due to pressure from these groups.
Inflation may be ad hoc but it also makes sense of the data from multiple sources of evidence, most importantly the CMBR. Besides we have plenty of geology to rely on before getting to that.
Again, I’m not saying churches need to argue this out during services. I think we agree it’s not a front line issue. I just wish we could tone down the boisterous family confrontations with globally accepted science when strangers knock on the door. But apparently that’s too much to ask from some folks.
June 16, 2008 @ 11:53 pmAlan said, John agreed and probably everyone understands that…
I would fit in the YEC camp. That is what I was taught from the early days and for me it is comfortable, emotionally more than mentally.
It feels very good to me but I’m not completely comfortable mentally because there is so much we don’t know and will never know. The dialogue is very enjoyable but unfortuntely it is rarely welcome especially among the YEC professionals (and it is always inconclusive – not too mention bogged down in sci-jar that is beyond even a lot of scientists). Jesus’ credibility never rested on high brow terminolgy. Why should ours? The prevailing attitude is, “you can’t really believe in God unless you view Him like I do.” Hopefully the attitude is changing.
But I am also uncomfortable because it makes no difference. No one becomes a Christian because they believe in any particular theory. I learned about this debate only after I got saved. Even though the YEC guys suggest that it promotes evangelism it just doesn’t happen. It starts a lot of fights (kind of like calvanism/arminianism) but it doesn’t generate a lot of fruit.
I have all the books and tapes (collecting dust) and have conducted seminars on the issue. What did I get from it…nothing but flack. The non-Christians accused me of anit-intellectualism and the Christians eventually became bored. I guess it would be more correct to say it doesn’t make a healthy difference. You definitely get a reaction.
I have never heard Billy Graham state his particular position regarding this theory. I’m sure he has one but he is clever enough to know that it has no place in an evangelistic effort. And evangelism is what he is about. When he speaks (during or between crusades) he keeps the main thing the main thing.
Of course, he is often maligned because he doesn’t jump on these topics when being interviewed publicly but maybe he understands something that the rest of us are missing. We really don’t have to be absolutely transparent. Jesus certainly wasn’t during His ministry.
When a lawyer asked Jesus how he could inherit eternal life Jesus said, “what do you think?” The lawyer gave the usual “obey the commandments” blurb and Jesus essentially said “yea, that’s right, do that and you are in” (Lk 10:25-28). Not the party line at all.
If Jesus had responded like any normal usual fightin fundie He would have been proud to spill all His knowledge on this seeking (?? accusing?? trouble making?? – I don’t know which) soul. Instead he very skillfully drew this man out and eventually got to the real issue.
I don’t bring up creationism anymore, either way. And when it comes up I have two standard responses: “what do you think” and “that’s interestting.” It respects the other person and keeps them thinking. And that really is the point.
June 17, 2008 @ 3:37 amI do not believe in a literal 24 hour creation day, I do not believe in a young earth theory, and I have no idea how it all happened. I know that the 24 hour and young earth just may be correct, but I am sure of only one thing.
God did it all.
OK – get the stakes lit!
June 17, 2008 @ 4:56 amI wonder what you’re arguing for with this John? That Christianity as preached by the churches ought to consider doctrine second to attraction?
I am all for “practical” or pragmatic Christianity. My fiancee recently took a Systematic Theology class from a prestigious Christian college and in one of our discussions we both agreed that while in our hearts and minds we both hold to the importance of doctrine, when we are living out our faith to others we are more likely to try and apply our faith to their need with slightly less concern for getting it all “just so” and more concern for making sure they know they cannot do it alone, they need forgiveness for their sin, and Jesus can provide that. Not that He’ll make your troubles go away, but that He’ll be with them through all of them.
As far as YEC: Troublesome to those who take the Creation Account to be figurative is the arrangement of the days of creation, with light and plants being created (non-literal: appearing) prior to the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and stars all being incredibly important to the survival of any vegetation or “life”).
I would submit that God makes Himself simple to those who are still exploring their need for Him: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved” and allows an unending depth of wisdom for us to delve once we’ve accepted His forgiveness and justification, which will further impress us with His supremacy and omnipotence.
But, to forget the importance of doctrine is to deny the importance of worldview: A worldview based on a faulty doctrine will fail. And when that shaky worldview must interact with a desperate life seeking strong answers, it may falter, and it will eventually fail.
June 18, 2008 @ 11:00 amI’m confused as to why this would be troublesome. Why couldn’t life survive for a mere 24 hours without light?
June 18, 2008 @ 12:21 pmEnnis,
I appreciate your perspective. If everyone took that approach we’d be better off.
Matthew,
I’m not arguing against doctrine, I’m arguing against making bad science into front line doctrine.
That said, YEC is just the most egregious case. I’d argue against making just about any science into doctrine. The Bible is simply not a science textbook and in the case of Genesis 1-2 I would say also not an eyewitness history(like the Gospels). Those that read it that way are doing real damage to Christianity’s credibility and handing a cudgel to our ideological opponents.
As for the problem you raise, yes it is problematic for any scientific reading of Genesis. Where was the light coming from prior to the creation of the sun? There are lots of ways around this, but in my opinion the best answer is that Genesis is not an historic account. It’s purpose is primarily religious/covenental and, secondarily, prophetic.
June 18, 2008 @ 12:54 pmMatthew
better put than I could manage, that is exactly what I think.
Lurker’s wife – without the sun, Earth would be frozen solid – colder than the poles are now. Nothing could live in that.
June 18, 2008 @ 1:04 pmFor 24-hours, God couldn’t have created it to be warm? If you dig deep into the earth right now, you will find molton lava. Don’t you think the earth might have been heated from the inside out? Scientifically, the poles wouldn’t have had a chance to freeze in the first 24-hours.
I have no interest in getting into a full-blown creation/theistic evolution (or other form of Old Earth theory) debate here, but I don’t appreciate the smug “we know more than YECs” I’m hearing. YEC is a serious scientific discipline, and while I appreciate some people’s not accepting it, that doesn’t mean that those who do are stupid or unscientific. There are things in YEC that demand further inquiry, but there are also things in Old Earth theories that have problems as well.
At the heart of it all, “How big is your God?” If He is big enough to part the Red Sea, if He is big enough to raise Lazarus from the dead, if He is big enough to conquer death and wipe away sin, all of these done in supernatural ways, then why is it so hard to wrap your head around the idea that he spoke full-grown things into existence. If Christ was born of a virgin, I think plants could live a day without the sun.
June 18, 2008 @ 2:02 pmI still would like an answer to this. Not that light from a star 1 million light years gets here, God could have created the light already reaching earth.
But why the event mirage? Why would he create a super nova event embedded within the light stream of that same star which did not actually happen if the universe was not at least 1 million years old?
June 18, 2008 @ 4:44 pmInstead of answering with a very lengthy response, I’ll point you to some great resources. I recommend reading through them both and/or doing other searches on the subject on the same websites. The resources are numerous:
http://www.icr.org/article/3270/
(my favorite quote from this one is:
Astronomers use supernovas as age and distance indicators. It’s hard to have confidence in the pronouncements of professionals who consider it normal to be off by 80% or more. Would this be acceptable in other fields? Yet upsets in astronomy are common.)
See also:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0602.asp
June 18, 2008 @ 6:28 pmIt’s nothing personal. But the problem Rick raises is a real one for YEC. The Milky Way is 100K light years across. The closest galaxy beyond ours is 180K light years away. As this Hubble photo shows, there are an unbelievable number of galaxies which are much, much farther away.
It’s true that measurements to distant objects are made using Cepheid variables based on assumptions about a relationship between the period of variability and absolute brightness. However, in 2008, the distance to a particular Cepheid in our own galaxy (RS Pup) was calibrated using pure trigonometry with an accuracy of 99%. Here’s an image that conveys the method. The result was within a few percent of estimates obtained using other methods. This particular star, which is less than half the distance to the galactic center, is 6500 light years away.
All of this to say, there is no way out of the problem Rick brings up except to say that God created things with “apparent age.” There’s no disproving that of course but it doesn’t seem “in character” to me.
June 18, 2008 @ 7:36 pmAnd the problem with the idea of creation being made with an “apparent age” is that this would mean God made the universe in a deliberately misleading way. If the universe and everything in it appears to be 4-20 billion years old, then humanity will likely believe it to be true. Why would God create a deliberately misleading system?
June 18, 2008 @ 8:08 pmI can see God creating a grown tree with rings that indicate maturity. My question is why would he construct a light event that did not occur.
When we see a nupernova expolsion it means that the light from that event began travelling within that lightstream and is seen here on earth. If that supernova is more than 10,000 light years away, then either God made a light event that never happened or the universe is older that 6000 years old.
Of course God can do anything, my question would be why? And the young earth theory is not a battle we should fight as if it was some doctrinal Custer’s last stand. We will know as we are known one day, until then I cannot believe the universe is that young.
June 18, 2008 @ 8:19 pmThere are problems, questions, and issues with every theory, of course, because we just plain don’t know everything. Personally, I have more of an issue with death and destruction before sin than I do with a mature earth at the time of creation.
Interestingly, this topic was addressed just a few months ago on a radio program, which you can listen to at http://www.icr.org/radio/view/618/.
June 18, 2008 @ 9:39 pmLW,
It’s a good point. I think that is the hardest part to figure out with an old earth.
Personally, I’ve believed there was death pre-fall for a long time, so it was less of an issue for me. People, had they not sinned, still would have had to eat. That means death for something, even if it’s plants. Other animals would have had to eat too.
It’s interesting that the names Adam gave the animals have meanings in Hewbrew which suggest predation. The name for Lion means “violent” and the word for Hawk means “tearing.”
Beyond that, the scripture says that after they’d sinned, God killed an animal and made skins to cover Adam and Eve. It’s true that this was post-fall, but so far as I know, God was not affected.
But I do appreciate it’s not an easy thing to accept.
June 18, 2008 @ 9:47 pmIf God created an aged Adam and an aged Eve, he certainly could create an aged earth and an aged universe. At least he shows the ability to do so.
June 18, 2008 @ 10:05 pm“That’s interesting.”
The topic is well worth the discussion (it really is very interesting) but once you commit to either side emotionally friction is generted and the fightin begins. Infighting is never attractive to outsiders. Actually, no one enjoys it. Christians readily engage it but only out of a distorted sense of duty.
One of the reasons I walked away from the YEC institutions is the vilifying factor. I enjoyed he information they provided but I couln’t stomach the attitude. Dissenters didn’t have a different and/or intersting point of view they were wrong, evil, anti-God (and us) or imbeciles. The attitude was either judgmental or condescending (real fruits of the Spirit). And the “evil ones” have responded in kind. They have tried to shut Christians out (especially the YEC guys) and they can’t be blamed for that.
The YEC folks in particular are trying to give evolutionists an answer. They would make more progress if they gave them an apology.
Get the fires going. Rick needs to burn!
June 18, 2008 @ 11:31 pmGet in line. Ennis – In my creation timetable fire hasn’t been invented yet!! :)
June 19, 2008 @ 3:01 amfunny how quickly a discussion about how we shouldn’t get caught up in our differences over creation ends up in a discussion about what we all think about creation.
June 19, 2008 @ 7:04 amRichard Dawkins, in his jeremiad against faith titled The God Delusion, largely ignores Jesus, as if he were peripheral to Christianity.
I might gently suggest that Dawkins ignores Jesus not because he’s peripheral to Christianity, but because he’s peripheral to Dawkins’s argument. I haven’t read Dawkins, but John Allen Paulos, in a passingly similar book, rolls all the monotheistic religions together because as an atheist he considers them equally false, so the distinctions between them are not important.
June 19, 2008 @ 12:04 pmBTW John – The 24 hour creation day is actually 24 hours and 1.01388888 seconds.
Leap year my friend!
June 19, 2008 @ 12:24 pmLeap year…funny!
So does that mean that Adam only got to celebrate his birthday every four years?
June 19, 2008 @ 12:39 pmThe first time Eve celebrated Adam’s birthday she brought him a nice fruit basket.
June 19, 2008 @ 1:06 pmNot denying this. God’s power is not in question. It’s also possible he could have created the whole thing yesterday and implanted false memories of all our preceding years. But it seems to me that God uses process in most cases.
David says “you knit me together” in the womb. He credits God with every person, and yet there is a process at work, one which we can observe with modern technology like 4D ultrasound. Process is not the enemy of creation. It’s God’s MO.
Keith,
Touche.
MDSF,
My point was that when young-earth creationism becomes a front line issue, Jesus really does become peripheral. I have read Dawkins book and the sense I got was that he really didn’t have a lot to say about Jesus. Some, but it’s a minor part of the book. He had plenty to say about young-earth creationism. So maybe if we stuck to Jesus, Dawkins would be forced to write skinny little tracts.
June 19, 2008 @ 1:26 pmAmen!
June 19, 2008 @ 1:36 pm“I suppose it could yet occur to the someone in charge [in the SBC]…”
There is no one “in charge” in the SBC because they have their Idol of Autonomy to hide behind.
June 19, 2008 @ 2:00 pm“Idol of Autonomy”?
So, what? You would prefer a more hierarchical approach like the Catholic Church?
June 19, 2008 @ 2:24 pmIt would have been much more productive if the SBC had stuck to their vision of missions cooperation and not morphed into a convoluted denomination that straddled the fence of divergence and doctrinal unity.
They used to disfellowship SBC churches that went charismatic. Who do they disfellowship with today? It depends on the level of support they receive from the church in question! :)
June 19, 2008 @ 2:38 pm“So, what? You would prefer a more hierarchical approach like the Catholic Church?”
O Scott ever wanting to start something, eh. Yeah, anyone who knows me knows how much I dig the RCC magisterium.
My point was simple in regard to John’s statement is all. In the SBC there is no such thing as “someone in charge.”
June 19, 2008 @ 5:42 pmNo, Ken, I wasn’t trying to start something. I know full well your feelings towards the Catholic Church. It was a tongue-in-cheek question not necessarily expecting an answer.
June 19, 2008 @ 6:05 pmA-yup, it wuz one them there ree-tore-i-cal thangs gotcha.
O what would the Church do without men like you to ‘splain things to us ig-nert folk.
June 19, 2008 @ 6:52 pm“It’s also possible he could have created the whole thing yesterday and implanted false memories of all our preceding years”. I don’t think He did this John. Oh wait…you were being sarcastic. Sarc from the greek word for flesh…ism from “to cut”. Cutting flesh literally.
My point is that the focal point of God’s creation (i.e. man) was created aged. Could He not have done the same with the rest of His creative act? Actually, who really cares – thought I’d throw it out there.
I was talking with a scientist at my company who happens to be an atheist. He’s a bright fellow with a PhD in Genetics. He brought up the age of the earth and what some Christians have claimed. I told him how God created was His business (theistic evolution, aged earth, etc.) and that Genesis was not a science text. He was surprised that I would not argue a young earth viewpoint with him. We quickly left the subject and went on to other areas concerning th faith. All in all, a good conversation with a guy who’s a lot more charitable/kinder than many Christians I know.
June 19, 2008 @ 7:19 pmJohn, I was surprised to read on your initial posting here that the SP at our old church taught on the “dreaded” subject of Calvinism. As a former staunch Arminian, and now a Calvinist, I would have personally gone up to the guy and asked why he switched positions. Maybe I would have noticed that he was even growing horns! I’ve known the SP for eighteen years – he’s as Arminian as they come. Besides the pastor at Hope would have had triplets if he discovered that his prize pupil had succumbed to such an evil heresy. Please see my above note on sarcasm. LOL
June 19, 2008 @ 9:07 pmScott… Ken… Both you boys had better quit tryin’ to “start something” or I’m gonna have to finish it! Neither one of you boys is too big put over my knee and give you good what for, I tell ya!
The point is, If there was some authentic accountability on the part of some insecure/pride-filled/it’s all about me/I’m in charge/CEO… pastors, there would be (IMHO) dramatically fewer ineffective, ego-centric, “country club” churches in the US.
June 19, 2008 @ 9:28 pmFree will or Predestination?……Yep.
June 19, 2008 @ 9:33 pmYou’re right.
June 19, 2008 @ 11:23 pmI’m sorry, Tim…but KEN started it!
Deception. :)
June 20, 2008 @ 2:07 amNah-unh. It was Scott what started it. He was being a booger-head. :-)
June 20, 2008 @ 7:10 amI see a lot of talk here about the Catholic Church. I’m not only a former Arminian, but I was raised as a devout Catholic. Yippee for me! I spent my first twenty-two years trying to be good enough so that I would get a chance to get into heaven. Christ’s death on the Cross just didn’t cut it for those of us who spend year after year studying in parochial schools. In fact, in the early sixties (pre-Vatican II), I was taught that Luther was a devil, that all Protestants were going to hell and that stepping inside a Protestant church was a mortal sin. We couldn’t even attend my grandfather’s funeral because he was a reprobated Presbyterian! Even today, as a lapsed Catholic (their view), I am damned because I have left the Church. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. LOL
June 20, 2008 @ 8:35 am“in the early sixties (pre-Vatican II),”
Unfortunately they still teach the same things. They just use nicer language. :-)
June 20, 2008 @ 9:20 amI know. My dear father passed away last year – what a trauma. Anyway, the church had condemned him because his current wife was not Catholic and was twice divorced (my mother passed away a long time ago). He was denied the sacraments and told that he was living in a state of constant mortal sin. He finally found a rogue priest in a tiny Catholic parish in Santa Ana who would give him the Eucharist.
My 83 year old Catholic neighbor fears for his eternal destiny – he believes he may have a chance at heaven, but still feels the odds are good that he’ll wind up in hell. He says he’s committed too many sins. I encouraged him about what was accomplished at Calvary. My wife suggested he go to confession. He has a hard time accepting anything from me about heaven since he believes I’ll be in hell with him. He prefers what his church teaches him versus what is found in the Bible. How sad.
June 20, 2008 @ 11:23 amJiim,
June 20, 2008 @ 11:41 amThat is quite a testimony but I appreciate what you are doing (re: your neighbor). Keep it up.
One final note: there are many Protestant churches that would have told my father the same thing. Obviously, they would not have used a term like “mortal” sin, but you get the picture. It seems it’s hard for us to get away from the Mother Church. Incidentally, I’ve been in both Arminian and Calvinist circles where people get their kicks out of “hell-bombing” wretched sinners. I prefer to stay clear of that approach – too toxic for me. Give me Arminians or Calvinists who simply love the Lord and like to fellowship with other believers – that’s where you’ll find me.
June 20, 2008 @ 12:06 pmJim,
That’s interesting. I’d never heard the SP comment on the issue one way or the other until last September. It seemed to me that every message referred to predestination in one way or another. He relied heavily on “A man plans his way but God determines his steps” verse, which doesn’t sound particularly Arminian to me.
I think he’s had a change of heart. Not that it matters ultimately. Lying to people isn’t acceptable to Arminians or Calvinists.
June 20, 2008 @ 2:03 pmUsing Proverbs 16:9 was an “easy out”.
What he really meant was; “No matter what your plans are *Worship Pastor or *Youth Pastor, I have different plans for you (and later I will just claim they came from God).
* Insert any number of people’s names and positions here
June 20, 2008 @ 3:39 pmJohn:
I too remember him saying that a few times. Anyway, he’ll use whatever verse, in whatever fashion, to try and control people. He’ll probably “guilt” enough new people into heavy giving in order to save the whole project. I’m at Seaside Community now – a great place. The SP is the antithesis to what we got at the old church. The Lord has drawn us to a place where the SP is filled with love and humility – great kid’s program as well.
June 20, 2008 @ 4:58 pmJim,
Glad you found a better place. There are quite a few within driving distance.
June 20, 2008 @ 9:44 pmHey Jim,
That is an astute observation and it is interesting that you, an ex-Catholic, can see it. I’ve never been a Catholic but I have come to realize just how “Catholic” protestants are, even of the Baptist variety.
In South Africa “Good Friday” is much much bigger than Easter Sunday. It is a national holiday and all churches traditionally hold services on the day. Why? Because that’s what the C’s do and the protestant churches can’t stand to be outdone.
But, it is also interesting that the Catholics here tend to be a bit more flexible than the protestants. They will probably lead the way in that matter also.
I had three Catholics visit one of our small groups (PD – dont’ tell anyone) and they are some of the best, most useful Christians I have met. At first I was very skeptical but after trying to “get them lost” for months I finally realized I was asking the wrong questions.
One has become a part of our church (she was between churches at the time and has taken flack for it). The second moved to another city but did visit before leaving (without eternal repercussions).
The third lady continues to fellowship with our small group (two years going) although she is still actively involved with her C church. My wife and I attended the reception following her daughter’s first holy communion (a first for me). It was quite an event. There were more lost people there (a crowd of 120) and more gospel than in many prostestant “baby dedicaions.” I felt honored when they asked me to open the event in prayer and then later to bless the food in prayer. I had complete freedom to pray (preach) the wonderful name of Jesus and the salvation He offers.
She and her daughter also visited one of our baby dedication services (her husband is deceased but I feel certain he would have been there also). It was very kind of them to do so. As far as I know there have been no repercussions in her case.
No, we aren’t trading doctrinal spit but we have gotten close enough to realize that Jesus and the salvation He offers is not limited by denominational boundries or the nonsense that any of them suggest.
June 20, 2008 @ 11:08 pmEnnis:
Good to hear how different things are in your neck of the woods. In the O.C. I haven’t met a priest yet who thinks I’m going to heaven when I die. In fact, the head of the Religion department at a prominent Catholic school was horrified to learn that I went to a Protestant seminary. You would have thought he was talking to Satan himself. LOL. I think the problem goes back to the Reformation (the fact that I was raised Catholic had something to do with it as well). I have met very few Catholics in my 54 years who believe in the doctrine of justification by faith (and faith alone). Most still view it as one of those weird Protestant things. Most devout Catholics are busy trying to work their way to heaven – it’s pretty sad. When I meet a Catholic and the subject turns to the faith, I emphasize Jesus and His greatness. I NEVER attack their faith. In the O.C. some of them have come under some pretty heavy fire for their Catholicism from non-Catholics. Two of my brothers are still very bitter about being raised Catholic – they view the Church as a cult. I don’t. We just avoid the subject when we get together – it only leads to fruitless arguments. Kind of like some things I read since I’m new to blogging – people arguing strenuously for their point, all to no avail. No one changes their mind – everyone stays entrenched in their own theology while the insults fly. Oh well, enough said.
June 21, 2008 @ 9:56 amQuestion Jim: What specifically does O.C. stand for?
June 21, 2008 @ 12:22 pmOrange County, California.
June 21, 2008 @ 1:34 pmI got a laugh out of that Jim. I thought you were referring to some special sect of Catholicism. Have a nice day.
June 21, 2008 @ 8:41 pmJim
Just to encourage you, I did. Not via the internet, but I changed a very entrenched opinion about women’s ministry as the result of debate.
On the other hand, I have a protestand friend who is studying at a Catholic college, and many, many protestant friends/acquaintances view that wih similar levels of horror to what you describe. That’s in England, by the way.
June 22, 2008 @ 3:04 amYeah, your Protestant friends need to lighten up a bit. Even if your friend takes a class in canon law, if he’s established in what he believes, the class should be no threat to him at all.
I’m probably missing though the cultural element in England (Protestant vs. Catholic). It seems every place has it’s own dynamics.
By the way, you changing a position because of debate shows your ability to be open-minded in the heat of battle. I think you’re an exception to the rule. Good for you bro!
June 22, 2008 @ 10:02 amWow…you don’t review for a weekend and there are hundreds of posts…
Rick, The answer to your question is Russell Humphrey’s White Hole cosmology. Whilst I doubt you could call it advanced, it is a plausible idea that could explain the phenomena.
As an aside, I have already mentioned that the big bang theory has a similar problem, which they solve with ‘inflation’ even though there is no known mechanism that would cause it (and stop it). But there are many other problems as well, such as, why 96% of the matter of the universe has to be invented to make the model work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
Personally, I’d go with a model that doesn’t need you to make up unobservable stuff, at a rate of 24 to 1 of observed matter, to work.
John,
The problem as I see it is that genesis 1-11 are written in a historical narrative style, and trying to make it otherwise seems to be simply responding to the pressures of todays scientific ‘consensus’, as RC Sproul recently decided. For instance, I just Rob Bell in ‘Open’ (nooma 19) and he talks about the ‘Genesis Creation Poem’. There is no Genesis creation poem. It doesn’t exist. Any objective analysis of the text actually shows it to be squarely in the historical narrative camp.
God uses process a lot to be sure, but God’s miracles are not process (turning water into wine was not a process.), so I hardly think trying to link the creation of the world to non-miraculous events is very useful. Every Christian has to think God worked outside of normal processes at least at some point.
Finally, you comment that there are degrees of being ‘hard to swallow’, yet YEC has only really been pushed for 25 to 30 years, and 50% of the american population now adhere to it. Compared to the OEC or Theistic Evolution views, this growth is amazing, and speaks to it not being that ‘hard to swallow’.
I know we disagree on this, and I have no problem with that (you think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. No biggie really). Two of the guys are my church are both highly credentialed academics at university. One is a biologist and the other is a geneticist. One is a YEC and the other is a theistic evolutionist. Intelligent people with a lot of scientific knowledge can disagree on this.
I think the issue is important because it speaks to a persons view of Biblical interpretation, and I think you would find that non-YEC’ers are a lot more likely to hold somewhat liberal views of other Biblical ideas. That of course, does not mean that everyone who is not a YEC does so, but it is an observation worth noting.
God Bless
June 22, 2008 @ 11:20 pmAG
OK – I will now reveal the complete understanding of the divine methodology used in creation. It is irrefutable and unabriged. It is called by all learned scientists as:
“Frueh’s Six Pillar Theorum”
I can provide the cosmological equation upon request.
June 22, 2008 @ 11:31 pmAmen. I have very good Christian friends who hold varying positions on this issue, and I don’t think any of their salvations are in doubt because of it.
June 23, 2008 @ 12:48 amI should add . . . I don’t think their intelligence is in doubt because of it, either.
June 23, 2008 @ 12:51 am