Well, it is Monday morning, so let me write something outrageous. We can sweep up the pieces later. But also keep in mind the fact that just because something is outrageous, it does not follow that it is untrue or unnecessary. In fact, now that the cultural headquarters of our republic has been transferred to the National Zoo’s central monkey house, every day that goes by makes normality more and more outrageous. So there’s that.
Worldview thinkers know that everything is connected. The world is all of a piece, and in the final analysis, the long war between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is an interpretive war over the whole. The seed of the woman seek to understand the world as the Creator of it understands it, and the seed of the serpent seek to understand it in evolutionary terms, which is to say, on its own terms.
The cosmos is here because God put it here. Or, taking the other route, the cosmos — in some form — was always here. Either God is eternal, or matter/energy are. In the former scenario, there was nothing material and then bam, there was everything that is. In the latter, you have constant, everlasting, unrelenting change. No hope, but lots of change.
The seed of the woman understand that the foundation of all wisdom begins with the Creator/creature divide. In the beginning, God . . . before the beginning, there was God. And God spoke, and “not God” came into being. And this triune God declared “not God” to be very good. Cornelius Van Til called this rudimentary fact the Creator/creature distinction. Peter Jones calls it Two-ism. But whatever you call it, the foundation of all true wisdom rests upon it.
The seed of the serpent insists that everything that is here morphed out of something else that was already here, and somehow, in some way, everything that is used to be something else. There was no ultimate beginning. All is One. This worldview exalts evolution of necessity; the whole thing is necessarily a protean, shape-shifting inchoate mass.
Now the worshipers of the Creator God have a Word from their God, and they also have the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The worshipers of Change have a faith also, and a sacrament to go with it, which turns out to be the multi-directional orgasm. They testify to their faith in evolution by insisting that anything be allowed to have sex with anything else. In case you were wondering, this is why that creepster transgender dude is in the women’s showers at the fitness club. It is also why discipline in such situations, when it is applied, is applied to any person who has a problem with the creepster being in there.
And besides, any woman who objects to showering with a dude who currently self-identifies as a woman is probably a woman who has a deep problem with Pharisaism.
This particular clown car phase of our cultural decadence is actually in line with the inexorable line of reasoning that Paul pursues in Romans 1.
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Rom. 1:24–27, ESV).
If you abandon the worship of the one true God, you will find yourself at some point partaking of the sacrament offered by the only other religious alternative. And that sacrament is sexual in nature. This is why, incidentally, an appeal to “traditional values” won’t work here. As a cultural value, faithful heterosexual monogamy is distinctively Christian, and not traditional at all. Pagan thought — which is necessarily evolutionary — has always made room for, and has insisted upon, sexual perversion.
And this brings us to the half-way position proposed by BioLogos. The existence of God is still affirmed, but it is claimed that He used evolution (shape-shifting) as His means of creating. This appears to be a mid-way position between the two, but another question has to be asked. Which direction is it going?
We become like what we worship. If we worship Change, we will come to insist on our right to be turned into anything, and to be turned on by anything. If we worship God, and God only, we will gladly accept His sexual assignments. If He decided to make you a boy, since He is God, then it follows that your duty is to like girls. After that, when you choose one of those girls, you give yourself to her completely. Life is simple.
I am not a betting man, but if I were a betting man . . . better yet, forget the bets. I am a thought experiment man. There really is a deep structure here, and I invite you to think in terms of it.
Take one thousand Christian schools, K-12. In your thought experiment, assume that five hundred of them adopt the BioLogos evolutionary approach to the sciences into their science curriculum. The other five hundred adopt a strict young earth creation approach. With me so far? Now fast forward twenty years. How many of these schools will have openly homosexual teachers and students? And are the percentages of such schools different in our two groups? Now sit down and think hard for a minute. Is there any conceivable connection here? Or am I just slinging around wild accusations? I will help you out — there is nothing wild about them.
When the prophet is sober and the culture is drunk, the charges only seem wild.
And besides, what additional proof of a deep commitment to shape-shifting do you need? If you can read a text that says that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and fashioned his wife from Adam’s rib, and from that text come to think that what God was really trying to get us to think was that all life arose from the sea, and that such life struggled across millions of years to eventually reach a gaggle of primates, so that God could give a couple of them a haircut and a bit more smarts, then frankly, putting up with a sex change operation should be a trifle.
I will admit that having the English Lit teacher self-identify as a junior high girl every second Tuesday so that he can shower with the rest of them might take a bit of getting used to. But progress is hard! Besides, the law says! Romans 13! And also besides, Selma!
“The seed of the woman seek to understand …”
A bit of postmil sneaking through with the plural seed?
“claimed that He used evolution (shape-shifting) as His means of creating”
You claim He used fiat to give the lion his lambalian appetite.
Can’t a manly man claim He may have changed some hamsters into lions?
Peril of decadence always exist when taking any position, even orthodox positions, because lies always contain bits of truth and the Enemy is clever. Keeping homos out of our Christian schools is important but also so is fostering the ability of Christians who understand hermeneutics on something other than a wooden level. Sorry, calling oneself an inerrantist and using grape juice for Communion sullies the moral-theological capital needed to authoritatively pronounce on what should constitute a clear reading of biblical texts. I say this understanding that Wilson uses wine so the criticism is aimed sideways. God bless.
Calling culture “drunk” is a little bit of an overstatement…wait…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972542/They-look-like-new-boy-band-s-world-s-THREE-WAY-sex-marriage-Gay-Thai-men-tie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html
*crickets*
Nevermind.
But mairnealach,
Must we greet one another with a holy kiss?
Romans 1.26 ff. is the end game. Where were the watchmen on the wall when no-fault divorce, shacking up, the hook up culture accosted the gates and breached the wall? I knew many a preacher who turned a blind eye for ‘the opportunity to minister.’ Code words for ‘This will make a mess and I don’t like pushing a broom.’ It’s been a slow train coming.
Doug, What I would really like to know is “Where do we as Christians go from here?” Now, as a Christian, I know that in the broad strokes, the answer is ‘Repentance, prayer, faithfulness in my own life, including my duties to my wife and my four children, obedience to God in the public square’, but I have to admit, when I read stories like the one you linked to, my heart sinks. I mean, I begin to feel like we are in a situation where as a righteous judgment the culture is so far gone that it is hard… Read more »
After 20 years you will get students who have left the faith because they found out that the earth really is old and they think if the church would lie to them about that they certainly would have no problem lying about the rest of it. Then they are freed from the church and enslaved by the alternative. That breaks the heart of a teacher and makes a school wonder why it is that they exist. There are certain things that must be believed in order to be a Christian and there are certain things that we should be humble… Read more »
Mike, I don’t think Pastor Wilson’s hypothesis is undermined by one–or even many–bad results. The question is not whether a school, a church, or a society which affirms scriptural inerrancy and authority can eradicate all dissension. However faithful such institutions are, the individual capacity for sin and rebellion endemic to fallen humans guarantees that many people will reject the necessary conclusions that result from faithful belief in and application of God’s Word. The question is instead one of authority. Who or what has the final say on what you will believe? If we, like the BioLogos types, cede territory to… Read more »
Mike: “There are certain things that must be believed in order to be a Christian…” and the age of the earth as determined by folks who “don’t know” or claim they “know” but don’t, is not one of them. I’m sorry, but the graduates of your Christian school are unbelievers because their hearts are unrepentant and the creation thingy is just an excuse. God is not amused. (I taught at a Christian high school for several years and none of what you say surprises me in the slightest).
Or prison.
I don’t accept that there is an invariable connection between finding evolution a plausible explanation of how we came to be and an enthusiastic embrace of deviant and/or promiscuous sex. I think there is a temptation for some Christians to assume that people accept evolution, not because they have examined the evidence and found it convincing, but because they see it as an excuse for loads of guilt-free sex. I know several evolutionary biologists, and a frenzied alternative sexual lifestyle seems to be the last thing on their minds. And some of them are as opposed to gay marriage as… Read more »
Why would the position that God used evolution in the creation of the world necessitate the worship of evolution instead of God?
When will you deliver your next gut-punch article to theistic evolutionists (biologos)?
“If He decided to make you a boy, since He is God, then it follows that your duty is to like girls. ”
To a Christian dealing with same-sex attraction, the word “duty” here stings. Am I continually disobedient as long as I don’t find myself attracted to girls, even though I want to be? How am I to obey this command?
Well yeah, Selma. Or in other words, when has the culture not been drunk?
Much is made of Paul’s pessimism on the Romans, but the Roman empire staggered on for 400 years after that pronouncement. Maybe Paul wasn’t as on point as people think.
On the other hand, great point about “traditionalism”. What a garbage concept. Do things because they make sense, not because they’re “traditional”
Romans 1 would be the reason that I’m Amil. That and observation of the world.
This post further enforces YEC as less a truth claim and more a group loyalty signal. Affirming YEC in the face of scientific evidence shows a strong commitment to a certain Christian subculture and may certainly select for those less prone to stray. However, that does not necessarily make it true.
Eric, two responses:
1. Of course his postmil “sneaks through.” He believes in it, do you want him to pretend to believe something else when it comes to actual application? It’s like suggesting that someone’s belief in gravity sneaks through when he’s talking about falling objects.
2. Or maybe it’s just belief in union with Christ.
Doug: in an attempt to run with your thought-experiment, I would say that if the litmus test 20 years forward is the amount of homosexual teachers and/or students (current or former), then the BioLogos school will likely have and have produced more. However, if the Litmus test was simply related to which school had and graduated more teachers and students who didn’t espouse or believe a Biblical worldview, or who were “fallen away” (as a Christian in the Reformed tradition I’m inclined to say, “not among the Elect”, but this begins to impinge on the validity of the litmus test… Read more »
To try another thought experiment, take a graduating class from a YEC espousing Evangelical high school and compare it to a group of Catholic initiate for the priesthood. In 10 years, which group is likely to have more individuals who have “fallen away”. What does that say about the theology taught to those two groups? Compare both groups to a group of new adherents to Islam. In 10 years, which group will have more individuals who are accepting of homosexuality?
For those of you who see the teaching of evolution as this search for the truth and finding different evidence or seeing the evidence slightly differently, you must be looking at a different history book than I am. The whole project of introducing evolution (particularly deep time) was motivated by a drive to “free science from Moses” (1) and remove Christianity from the origins of the earth and the debate of God’s existence. They strategized ways of introducing it to the clergy so as not to offend too much, but so that they would ultimately accept it, and thus its… Read more »
What if evolution = a series of design transitions in time from A to Z?
Say:
A = God’s idea
B = ?
C = Earth & Water
D = ?
E = Herbs
F = ?
G = Lions & Lambs that eat only herbs
H?
I = Humans
J = ?
K = Lions that eat Lambs
L = ?
M = You
Zachary, Thanks for your comments. I understand what you are saying. I agree about the authority of Scripture and it is clear that we are not to add to or take away from Scripture. I also appreciate, actually love, the mystery of scripture. What is wonderful is that there are truths to stand upon and there are mysteries to study. There are simply things that Scripture does not tell us or does not tell us completely – that does not mean that it is in error. This is one reason that Scripture is a daily draw. This is also one… Read more »
This comment is for Brent: I just wanted to say how very sorry I am that you are struggling with this. It must be very, very difficult and isolating for you, and it is obvious from your comment that you are genuinely trying to serve the Lord. I have one comment on that. First, everyone has attractions to people they aren’t supposed to. Even married men are still attracted to other women. Even married women are still attracted to other men. The attraction itself is a physical response based on a humongous number of factors and the Bible has nearly… Read more »
“the Bible has nearly nothing to say about that”
Rachel — great point about universally wayward attractions!
I bet the Bible is chock full of things to say about that, though.
Jill Smith, “I don’t accept that there is an invariable connection between finding evolution a plausible explanation of how we came to be and an enthusiastic embrace of deviant and/or promiscuous sex. …does Scripture tell us that the person who has same-sex attractions has a duty to God to learn to like girls as Pastor Wilson suggests.” It seems to be very clear that “start here…end here” is plain in scripture. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about… Read more »
Mike, I’m glad we agree on the authority of scripture. A necessary precondition to rational discussion is matching frequencies. But once that axiom is established, the question becomes, “what does the authority say?” I certainly agree with you that there are hidden mysteries in God’s creation, and that it is our privilege as God’s regents to seek those mysteries out. What can be potentially difficult is separating mystery in-fact from mysteries innovated out of intentional misunderstandings of the text. But while I would shy away from a dogmatic interpretation of, for instance, the Book of Revelation (within the post-millennial limits… Read more »
First off, for those of you that think that 6 day YEC is the only ‘biblical’ approach, I think you should consider reading John Lennox’s “7 Days that Divide the World.” And you can see how (whether you agree or disagree) one can have an old earth perspective and simultaneously a high view of scripture. Second, I think it is important to YEC’s to remain humble. Is it possible that you have got your reading wrong? Does the bible *mandate* that we hold to a 6000 year old planet? Or is it possible it is older? Which brings me to… Read more »
oops I didn’t finish my last sentence… I do not think it follows that a robust Christian with a theistic evolutionist perspective would trend liberal theologically.
Zachary, If I am going to say that there are some mysteries than I need to be willing to say that your understanding of “formed man of the dust of the ground” certainly could be the right one. [I just cannot say that your understanding of Jesus’ Death, burial and resurrection could be the right one – If we are brothers in Christ we agree on that. ] I do not mean anything goes and interpretation is up to the individual as long as you are sincere, I just mean that there are some things that we cannot claim with… Read more »
God is a Person; He is real, He communicates with us; He intercedes and transforms our lives. There is no science involved. Communicating this reality to the unsaved is difficult. Many try via apologetics and argument but at the end of the day salvation is a one-to-one relationship. I am not saved because I read the Bible or go to church. I am saved because I trust God and His Word. It is this relationship that bridges the gap between what I have read the age of the Earth is and the creation account. I can look at these controversies… Read more »
Sorry, I did not complete my comment. As Christian’s we can say we do not know how to resolve the scientific dispute and yet still claim or faith in our Savior; there is no dishonor in that. I think one thing that may be happening is the disconnect between a man of faith who knows the Bible is the word of God and acts on that–as Pastor Wilson is–versus the scientist who sees the Bible as just another middle-eastern text to be examined dispassionately as a historical artifact. The pastor argues from Genesis, the scientist argues from differential equations and… Read more »
A writer says: “Which brings me to the thought experiment, I think that if students are taught that YEC=biblical Christianity and they see evidence that shows that the earth is very old, they will mentally be seeing information that presents a strong case that biblical Christianity is wrong. ” Well then, how about: “Which brings me to the thought experiment, I think that if students are taught that people blind from birth have their sight restored with spit and dirt and they see evidence that shows that there is no scientific basis for that, they will mentally be seeing information… Read more »
David — Have you read Rules for Reformers? That’d at least be a good start to answering your question re what to do about it all.
Yeah, what RFB said!
“evidence that shows that the earth is very old”
Willis — As an evoyec agnostic myself — I’d like to hear about some of that evidence.
Whatchagot?
Eric, In terms of evidence for the age of the earth, it is pretty overwhelming actually. There are a number of different “clocks” that science has found to look at age (everything from radiometric dating to tree rings). All of these clocks work in quite different ways (seasonal changes, isotope half lives etc). But they all match when we look at artifacts. So, think about that. You might call into question one clock. You might say that, for example, Potassium-40’s half life may have changed over time and therefore that clock should be tossed. But then, of course, we could… Read more »
RFB, I think your alternatives examples are flawed. First off, the bible does not say the age of the earth. People have cobbled together an age but their method can be challenged and good Christians (including good guys like John Piper who holds to an old earth). Second, I think that we are not talking about the question “can God do miracles?”. Obviously, he can. But we are talking about evidence we can see here. So, take any of the examples, imagine if we were there and could see clearly that they were being faked. Then we would be right… Read more »
RFB, I find your though experiments unconvincing. Miracles whether done by prophets, apostles or Jesus are not done as a magic show. They are done outside of the natural order to point to the legitimacy of the miracle worker as a prophet of God. The creation of our planet and the life on it does not seem to have had that as a primary purpose. It certainly points to the glory of God, but it is not a miracle in the same sense as those that you are using to unsuccessfully refute Willis’ argument.
Willis V — good stuff, interesting, reasonable & compelling to me.
Does Old Earth theory require hominids?
Or can it have Adam & Eve, say, a hundred thousand years or less pop on the scene?
DCHammers,
“done outside of the natural order“??
What does that outside mean?
I thought they all happened here where the sun shines and gravity pulls.
“So, take any of the examples, imagine if we were there…” with muddy spit on a blind mans eyes a split second before his sight is restored, the moment when everyone is filling big pots with water, and helping wrap up the body of a Man you know is dead…
What would you think at that point?
Willis V – one side always seems right until you study the other side. This is not often done in secular literature, but it is done. I assume you have done this, and chosen ‘your side’, but others reading your arguments may want to look at the problems with the various dating methods and the evidences of a young earth:
http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa
Willis V, I do not have an axe to grind with your last post, per se, but I would say that as Christians, if the Bible were to make a statement regarding the age of the earth, whether explicit or implicit, that, properly interpreted, Christians should use that revelation as a starting point for helping them interpret the data they gather from studying the material world around them. I think one concern that I and others have is the idea that the age of the earth is debatable (it is), and that therefore the interpretation of Genesis 1 in terms… Read more »
@RFB
That was epic.
@Willis V
Your rebuttal was very good.
I consider myself a YEC in this regard, that from Genesis 1:2 to today has been between 6,000 and 10,000 years. That the days in Genesis were literal 24 hour days and that evolution, theistic or otherwise, is completely at odds with Scripture. I also believe that if God could make Adam fully mature as an adult, that he could create a fully mature universe with but a single word. Now, I do see a viable option for an old earth in views like the Gap Theory, which state that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is an indeterminate period… Read more »
Willis V, You have way overstated the harmony of these dating methods. To read your post, these methods harmonize like a zipper. Not the case at all. Sometimes these methods give dates for the same rocks that vary by hundred of thousands of years. The Mount Saint-Helen explosion threw these dating methods and the scientists using them for a loop that still puzzles many of them to this day. Rocks formed a month prior were dating to hundreds of thousands of years old. Also, you have not dealt with the working assumptions of these methods. They, in most cases, assume… Read more »
Eric,
//Does Old Earth theory require hominids?
Or can it have Adam & Eve, say, a hundred thousand years or less pop on the scene?//
There are a ton of different views on this. I think that the point of connection between Old Earth Creationists and Young Earthers (versus say theistic evolutionists) is the conviction that Adam and Eve were a real and literal couple from whom we all descend. Some (but not all) theistic evolutionists agree with that as well.
Hi Ellen, Thank you for the note. Since I started from a YEC standpoint and it took me a while to interact with the evidence for OE, I have engaged a lot of the YEC counter arguments and generally think that do not stand very well in front of the mountain of evidence for old earth. With that being said, I am quite open with the fact that I could be wrong. I may die and God may tell me “Willis, you goofball, you got that one very wrong.” But I have to be honest with what I see. And… Read more »
BJ & David et all (on the one side) & Willis on the other.
You all seem to admit that honest boys & girls can read the created data differently.
That should give both sides pause.
Some say He tells us He’s a young earth Guy.
Maybe.
“24 hour days” = a YEC proof.
But doesn’t He say somewhere that that last 24 hours has yet to conclude?
If so — doesn’t that give pause regarding how you’ve interpreted the first six days?