Friday, January 27, 2006

Updated: The End of the Spear ***



The missus and I went to see this film this weekend. It really was a wonderful film that was very enjoyable. The first 20 minutes are somewhat boring, but, after that, the film picks up and doesn't look back. A very good film that represents some very good Christian values: peace, sacrifice, love, forgiveness, cooperation and courage. Do not let the Baptist Press disuade you from seeing this film; it really is worth the price of admission.

Theological Synopsis:

Native groups keep dying at the “end of a spear”. Rival clans, families and sons keep avenging the deaths of fathers and et al. This leads to a vicious cycle of violence. Missionaries visit the natives in hopes of ending the killing. The natives kill the missionaries. The widows of the missionaries (and one son in particular) go back and help the natives. The natives are surprised that the families are “turning the other cheek”. The missionary widows tell the natives that the Creator-God-Father had a Son who taught not to kill. Others were angry that the Son was preaching that the Creator was teaching not to kill. The others killed the Son on the end of the spear. The Son turned the other cheek. The Creator-God-Father turned the other cheek. Some of the natives listen to the missionary widows and stop killing. Most of the natives want to continue killing other natives. When other natives get sick with polio, the missionary widows and some of the natives “turn the other cheek” and help these natives. This act of love ends the killing among the different native groups. Slowly the native groups who are upset about the end of the killing adapt into the new way and even the head native who killed the father of the missionary boy’s father becomes a believer. When the boy becomes an adult, the head native tells him that it was he who killed his father and the head native wants the grown missionary boy to avenge his father and kill the head native at the end of a spear. The boy forgives the head native, “turning the other cheek.” With no one seeking revenge and no more killings at the end of the spear … what then do we have? … we have THE END of “the spear.”

Friday, January 20, 2006

A Quick Confession of Christ

Jesus Christ is essential to my religious experience, both in theory and in praxis. He is my starting point for understanding God and Man. Christ is the mediator between God and Man and I understand Him to be the full and complete revelation of God and the full revelation of Man. I understand Christ to be the God-Man, the incarnate Word spoken by God simultaneously with the breathing out of God’s Spirit.

In terms of my theory, Christ is God’s means of reconciling Man to Himself and He is the fullest expression and evidence of God’s love. In order to redeem Man from death and fulfill His intention of creating a creature in His image with which He could fellowship, God sacrificed His Son to become incarnated in flesh as Man for all time in order to be the full and complete representative of all that Man is intended to be. As perfect Man, Christ Jesus has Man’s full and intended fellowship with God which is not interrupted by death because God recognizes in Christ the love and devotion of a creature that can and wants and deserves to be in fellowship with Him. In this, Jesus Christ became God’s sacrifice to Man, and also Man’s sacrifice to God. Man’s fellowship with God is continued and death is overcome. And in order to redeem more of Man than just Christ, the mercy and grace of God upon Man comes through Christ in that God chooses to view Man through Christ and in Christ and not as himself. In this regard, all women and men who are identified with Christ are granted the blessings that God gives to Christ. Man and God are reconciled through the God-Man and fellowship is uninterrupted.

In terms of praxis, I understand Christ to be the fulfillment of the law and the standard by which I apply God’s commands. I see the law and, in particular, the greatest and second greatest commandments as speaking to the individual’s relationship to God and to Man. That Christ is both God and Man speaks to the legitimacy of His example and the central position He has in all these relationships. Therefore, I understand my relationship to God as being one that exists through Christ. Furthermore, I understand that my relationship to others as being one that exists through Christ. I would go so far to say that I understand my relationship to myself as being one that exists in and through Christ. I base my entire religious experience with God and with Man as one that is in Christ. I work and pray to become more Christ-like, I measure my faith to the standard that is Christ, and I seek to relate to God and to Man as Christ does.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

"Private Prayer Language" And Dictating An Individual's Personal Relationship With God

A friend posted the two following questions on his blog. I thought they were very good questions and here is my answer in toto.

1. Do you believe people today are gifted with "speaking in tongues?" I do not mean speaking in foreign languages, but speaking a spiritual language, a prayer language even, which is understood only by the Holy Spirit?

2. Would you become a member of a church where it was acceptable for people to speak in such a tongue, even if they did not do it in public?


You have raised some good questions. Allow me to offer my “dime-a-dozen” opinion. Let me forewarn: the more I thought about this issue the madder I got at recent individuals who feel the need to come between a person and God.

To answer the first question: from a conservative standpoint, why not?

Luke records in Acts 2, 10, 19 that the church spoken in tongues. In Acts 2, Peter states that this “tongue speaking” was the result of God having the anointed Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit (Luke refers to this event in Luke 3:22 and 4:1). In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus gives the Scriptural basis for this anointing by citing Isaiah. In Acts 2:16-21, Peter gives the Scriptural basis for the anointing of the Jesus’ disciples (and the subsequent “tongue-speaking” by citing the prophecy of Joel. In Acts 10, when the Gentiles receive the anointing by the Holy Spirit and the subsequent “tongue-speaking”, Peter states that the Gentiles have now received the anointing of the Holy Spirit just as they had at Pentecost.

Now in Acts 19, Paul repeats for the Ephesians what Peter did for the house of Cornelius in Acts 10. In Acts 18:1, Paul goes to Corinth and in Acts 19:1, Apollos goes to Corinth. In Acts 18:19, Paul goes to Ephesus and in Acts 18:24, Apollos goes to Ephesus. This appears to be one the methods that Paul and Apollos cooperatively employed when ministering to Gentile churches (1 Corinthians 3:6 – “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase).

What is interesting is that in both Christian communities, we have “tongue-speaking” where Paul and Apollos have both been. It is probable that Paul initiated the “tongue-speaking” in Corinthians as he did in Ephesus.

Paul touches upon “tongue-speaking” in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14 and its chapter 14 that is the most relevant to this issue.

In 14:2, the apostle Paul writes, “For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.”

In 14:5, the apostle Paul writes, “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.”

What Paul is stating in the this chapter is that “tongue-speaking” is edifying to the individual person worshipping God but that in public such a practice is pointless because no one can understand the person. If a person is going to “tongue-speak” in public than he needs an interpreter, otherwise no one knows what he’s saying.

Yes, I do believe that this is a spiritual gift that people receive today. I know a few professors at seminary who speak in tongues in their own personal prayer time with God.

I know that the traditional, conservative view of tongue-speaking is that it no longer occurs, but based upon the doctrine sufficiency of the Scripture as held by conservatives:

1) The Scriptures never state that these gifts reach a cessation point. In fact, according to Peter’s use of Joel in Acts 2, this gift is evidence that the last days are here. If “tongue-speaking” then stops, one could reason that these “last days” are no longer the “last days”. And that would contradict Scripture.

2) According to 1 Corinthians 14:5, Paul encourages “tongue-speaking” for all believers.

Are we going to say that Paul only meant these words for just that particular church at that particular time? Are we going to say that this was a practice that was for the church at that time but that it does not apply to us as Bible-believing, inerrantists who believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures?

Okay, then. We can then use that methodology for the rest of that chapter and in verse 14:34 in particular:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

Now many conservatives believe that this verse prohibits women from being senior pastors. But Paul only meant these words for just that particular church at that particular time. This was a practice that was for the church at that time but that it does not apply to us as Bible-believing, inerrantists who believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Now I don’t interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34 in the way many conservatives do so I do not have the problem they do.

Now here is where I get passionate:

To answer the second question: a church allowing such a practice in a person’s private time with God would not cause me to not attend that church or become a member. In fact, I would stop attending a church that told the individual “despite what the Bible says, you cannot use ‘tongues’ while praying to God in your private time.”

Who are they to tell a person how they should or should not speak to their God? It is a private matter between two persons and they have no business meddling in such a relationship over such an issue.

What next? “Don’t raise your hands in prayer.” “Don’t kneel in prayer.” Don’t stand up in prayer.” “Don’t pray in the morning,” “Don’t pray at night.” “Use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’” “Don’t use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’.”

Now have never spoken in tongues and I really don’t feel comfortable doing so. But I speak to God and He speaks back. AND I TAKE THOSE MOMENTS VERY SERIOUSLY. I can certainly understand that churches would want to prohibit such worship in public ceremonies but to prohibit the use of private "prayer languages" by missionaries … to me that borders on blasphemous arrogance. No one but Christ has the right or authority to mediate someone’s relationship to God. To do so is to assume Christ’s work as your own.

Yes, the trustees of the International Mission board have decided that since the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as "private prayer language," then any individual who does practice “tongue speaking” or "private prayer language" cannot be a missionary.

Now the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is completely silent on this issue. It does not speak about it either “tongue-speaking” or "private prayer language". But let us examine the IMB trustees’ universal dictate upon all Southern Baptist missionaries’ personal and private prayers to God … with highlighted commentary.

1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia. [It’s just spelt the same way. And most of the trustees agreed to this blanket dictated interpretation despite the wishes of the delegates to Southern Baptist Convention.]

2. Paul’s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding. [“So if we do not understand what you and God are discussing in your private prayer time we must assume that it is not prayer.” You’ll notice they do not cite Scripture here. I suppose 1 Cor. 14:2,5 is considered irrelevant, then.]

3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures. [Notice they are not doing so.]

4. In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as "private prayer language." [That is the general spiritual experience of most Southern Baptists; but any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.] Therefore, if "private prayer language" is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC. [Well, most Southern Baptist do not raise their hands in prayer; if “hand-raising” is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC?]

Here is an instance where a small group of men have taken it upon themselves to interpret Scripture (without 2000 BFM or convention approval) and decided to prevent any missionary from serving who privately worships God in a manner in which they do not. Here we have a small group of individuals who are claiming the right of the majority to tell minority individuals how they should and should not pray (not in public) but in private. This is a really serious turn of events. How can one legislate the lifting of one’s voice to God?

Speaking of “lifting of one’s voice”, the new IMB program is called Lift Up Your Voice.

How does Jerry Rankin, President of the IMB describe it:

“Those who are called to the mission field sacrifice everything they have —lives of personal comfort and safety —to bring the precious message of Jesus to those who don’t know Him. Those who stay behind play a crucial role in furthering the kingdom. Lift Up Your Voice is a special invitation for your church to lift up hearts, minds, and voices in prayer and devotion in support of missionaries and for the lost around the world. Lift Up Your Voice. It will change your life. It will change your church’s life. It will change the lives of others.”

Of course, Rankin has gotten in trouble recently for admitting that he uses "private prayer language". Following such a revelation, the IMB trustees decided to dictate a ban on "private prayer language".

It appears that, in order to get enough votes among the trustees, some of the lead trustees began to “lobby” other trustees out of session, which is a violation of trustee rules. When one individual trustee began to raise problems over these illegal “lobbying” tactics, the trustees have now decided to seek to remove this individual trustee from the trustee board.

For what cause has this trustee been accused of that he deserves removal? He has “broken trust and [been] resistan[t] to accountability."

At some point, these prideful resurgent fundamentalists are going to have to be accountable to someone for their un-Christ-like behavior.

And to those who believe that “tongue-speaking” is demonic … you better be very careful. Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 12:31 when they proclaimed that the work of the Holy Spirit was the work of demons:

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the [Holy] Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men.”

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Virgin Spanking Infant Jesus before Three Witnesses



Max Ernst, Virgin Spanking Infant Jesus before Three Witnesses (1926). It isn't necessarily the most orthordox but it does raise the interesting question of who has done the wrong deed(s). And why is Mary wearing red? And who are the witnesses?

Monday, January 16, 2006

Scripture Verses For Today

Genesis 37:18—20 They saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him. They said to each other, "Here comes that dreamer. Now is our chance; let us kill him and throw him into one of these pits and say that a wild beast has devoured him. Then we shall see what will become of his dreams".

Psalms 82:3—4 Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 21:3 Do what is right and just; that is more pleasing to God than sacrifice.
Isaiah 1:16—17 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Isaiah 40:4-5 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Isaiah 51:7 Hearken unto me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of people, and be not dismayed by their revilings.

Amos 5:21—24 I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts, I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream.

Matthew 5:3—12 Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the realm of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall

Colossians 3:12—14 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving one another; as God has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

2 Peter 3:13 What we await are new heavens and a new
earth where, according to God’s promise,
the justice of God will reside.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

An Open Letter To My Niece And To All Who Are About To Read The Chronicles of Narnia For The First Time




An Open Letter To My Niece And To All Who Are About To Read The Chronicles of Narnia For The First Time

My Dearest Niece,

When you visited us this past autumn, I quite remember discussing the book series, The Chronicles of Narnia. Your mentioning that you had not yet read the series sent me on a quest to obtain all the books of the series for you to enjoy. It is unfortunate that the books we gave you are not new or in excellent condition. Let me explain why I felt it necessary to search out older editions of the book while bypassing newer editions which can be found in ANY bookstore. Being quite a fan of the series, I am somewhat perturbed by the contemporary presentation of newer editions.
First, all new editions of the book are presented in a chronological order but not in the order of which they were first published. Because of this change, much of the emotional impact of the stories and their surprises are diminished greatly. I would never ever allow someone to first read these books in the order of which they are currently produced; it's literary heresy. Even the recent film series begins with the first published book!

Therefore, allow me to suggest the following order:

1) The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe
2) Prince Caspian
3) The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4) The Silver Chair
5) The Magician’s Nephew
6) The Horse and His Boy[1]
7) The Last Battle

Second, while the new editions of the series are presented in an order which greatly diminish the books impact, this does not necessarily require the possession of older editions. If this problem were the newer editions only fault, one could buy the newer editions and tell their niece the best order to read the books in.
However, an incorrect order is not the only problem. C.S. Lewis himself made several changes to the texts of the original British edition while reading the proofs for the American. The changes are noticeable in chapters 1, 6, and 13 of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and chapter 12 of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. It is unfortunate but true that when HarperCollins took over publication of the series in 1994, they made the unusual decision to ignore the changes that Lewis had made and use the original British edition for all subsequent English editions worldwide.
These changes might seem somewhat slight but for the purist they soil the intended work by altering names and places from Lewis’ final conception. Because of these changes in the recent editions, it is impossible for anyone who really loves the books to be completely satisfied with anything other than the intended texts. And, unfortunately, this means that most copies that one acquires are going to be beat-up Collier-Macmillan paperback editions from the 1970s.
Let me assure you that you are not the only one who must suffer with 35 year old paperback editions. I myself spent a good long year searching second hand bookstores in order to obtain a complete set of the pre-1994 American editions. Therefore, while I would never be satisfied simply owning an incomplete set of my favorite book series, I could never allow my niece to be given such an incomplete set. Therefore, please accept my explanation for the quality of these books. I want only the best for my niece and these editions are the best.
These books have been an experience of great joy for me and my imagination since I was in second grade. To this day, I continue to read them at bed time and am frequently amazed that they still shine with undullable insight into what it means to be a follower of Christ and what it means to experience our Faith.
One of the great joys of aging is the experience of reliving our life's greatest joys at seeing younger men and women experience those same joys for the first time. I certainly hope these books bring you as much joy as they have brought me.

Your affectionate uncle,



[1] While I realize that The Horse and His Boy was the fifth published book of the series and in no edition appears as sixth, I personally find this position to be more satisfactory in that it sets up the Calormenes for their substantial role in The Last Battle and that it gives more adequate breathing room between the creation of Narnia in The Magician’s Nephew and the events of the final book. But I am hardly dogmatic about this particular preference.

Monday, January 09, 2006

FIRST-PERSON: Understanding the emerging church

Here is a quite fair article from the NAMB about the "emerging" church movement. Coming from an admitted conservative (and nothing wrong with that) this is a very fair and honest conservative look at this movement.

Friday, Jan 6, 2006
By Ed Stetzer

ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)--It’s been interesting to watch the emerging church conversation over the last few months. Important issues are being discussed. Unfortunately, like many conversations, good things are lumped together with bad and important conversations are lost in more heat than light.

My own observation as one who speaks at some events classified as “emerging” is that there are three broad categories of what is often called “the emerging church.” Oddly enough, I think I can fairly say that most in the emerging conversation would agree with my assessments about the “types” of emerging leaders and churches -- and just differ with my conclusions.

In this too brief article, perhaps I can make a few suggestions on how conservative evangelicals should view these types of emerging churches. I believe that some are taking the same Gospel in the historic form of church but seeking to make it understandable to emerging culture; some are taking the same Gospel but questioning and reconstructing much of the form of church; some are questioning and revising the Gospel and the church.

-- Relevants.

Yes, I made up the word. Sorry about the grammar. However, it expresses an important idea. There are a good number of young (and not so young) leaders who some classify as “emerging” that really are just trying to make their worship, music and outreach more contextual to emerging culture. Ironically, while some may consider them liberal, they are often deeply committed to biblical preaching, male pastoral leadership and other values common in conservative evangelical churches.

They are simply trying to explain the message of Christ in a way their generation can understand. The contemporary churches of the 1980s and 90s did the same thing (and some are still upset at them for doing so). However, if we find biblical preaching and God-centered worship in a more culturally relevant setting, I rejoice just as I would for international missionaries using tribal cultural forms in Africa.

The churches of the “relevants” are not filled with the angry white children of evangelical megachurches. They are, instead, intentionally reaching into their communities (which are different than where most Southern Baptists live) and proclaiming a faithful biblically-centered Gospel there. I know some of their churches -- they are doctrinally sound, growing and impacting lostness.

-- Reconstructionists.

The reconstructionists think that the current form of church is frequently irrelevant and the structure is unhelpful. Yet, they typically hold to a more orthodox view of the Gospel and Scripture. Therefore, we see an increase in models of church that reject certain organizational models, embracing what are often called “incarnational” or “house” models. They are responding to the fact that after decades of trying fresh ideas in innovative churches, North America is less churched, and those that are churched are less committed.

Yet, God’s plan is deeply connected with the church (see Ephesians 3:10). God’s Word prescribes much about what a church is. So, if emerging leaders want to think in new ways about the forms (the construct) of church, that’s fine -- but any form needs to be reset as a biblical form, not just a rejection of the old form. Don’t want a building, a budget and a program? OK. Don’t want the Bible, scriptural leadership, covenant community? Not OK. (For an excellent summary, see NAMB’s document by Stan Norman called “Ecclesiological Guidelines to Inform Southern Baptist Church Planters.”) Also, we must not forget, if reconstructionists simply rearrange dissatisfied Christians and do not impact lostness, it is hardly a better situation than the current one.

-- Revisionists.

Much of the concern has been addressed at those I call revisionists. Right now, many of those who are revisionists are being read by younger leaders and perceived as evangelicals. They are not -- at least according to our evangelical understanding of Scripture. We significantly differ from them regarding what the Bible is, what it teaches and how we should live it in our churches. I don’t hate them, question their motives and I won’t try to mischaracterize their beliefs. But, I won’t agree with them.

Revisionists are questioning (and in some cases denying) issues like the nature of the substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, the complementarian nature of gender, and the nature of the Gospel itself. This is not new -- some mainline theologians quietly abandoned these doctrines a generation ago. The revisionist emerging church leaders should be treated, appreciated and read as we read mainline theologians -- they often have good descriptions, but their prescriptions fail to take into account the full teaching of the Word of God.

Does that mean we cannot learn from them? Certainly not. I read mainline theologians like Marcus Borg and George Lindbeck like others in the past read Karl Barth -- good thinkers, but deeply wrong on issues I hold as important. I read many emerging church writers the same way. They ask good questions, but I am driven to Scripture for the answers.

So, where do we go from here?

Much of SBC life is absent from the emerging church conversation. Let’s jump in -- John Hammett at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has done a great job not just in his paper, but in entering the theological conversation that has flowed from it. His paper can be read at http://ateam.blogware.com/AnEcclesiologicalAssessment.Hammett.pdf.

To be in this conversation, we need to think biblically and critically. We should journey and partner with the “relevants,” seeking to make the Gospel understandable in emerging culture. We can and should enter into dialogue with reconstructionists -- learning, discussing and applying together what Scripture teaches about church.

But, we can and must speak prophetically to revisionists that, yes, we know the current system is not impacting the culture as it should -- but the change we need is more Bible, more maturity, more discernment and more missional engagement, not an abandonment of the teachings of scripture about church, theology and practice. Every group that left these basics has ended up walking away from the faith and then, in a great twist of irony, is soon seen as irrelevant to the world they tried to reach.

This is an important moment in the emerging church. Many “emerging” evangelicals are distancing themselves from the revisionist leaders. Papers have been presented, publishing relationships have been altered, and many in the blogosphere are questioning the ecumenical nature of new partnerships. That’s good. Let’s affirm the good, look to the Scriptures for answers to the hard questions, and, yes, let’s graciously disagree when others hold views contrary to our best scriptural understanding of God, Bible and church.

Friday, January 06, 2006

A Scene from Black Adder



One of the funniest scenes from the best episode of Black Adder's Second Season, one of my favourite shows.

BA: Right, good morning team. My name is Edmund Blackadder
and I'm the new minister in charge of religious genocide.
Now, if you play straight with me you'll find me a considerate
employer, but cross me and you'll find that under this playful
boyish exterior beats the heart of a ruthless sadistic maniac.
Now my man you are ?
MRP: Eh, jailor Sir, my Lord.
BA: Good, well done and your name is ?
MRP: Ploppy Sir.
BA: Ploppy ?
MRP: Yes Sir.
BA: Ploppy the jailor ?
MRP: That's right Sir. Ploppy son of Ploppy.
BA: Ploppy, son of Ploppy the jailor ?
MRP: Ah ach no Sir. I am the first Ploppy to rise to be jailor.
My father, Daddy Ploppy was known as Ploppy the slopper.
It was from him that I inherited my fascinating skin diseases.
BA: Yes you are to be congratulated, my friend, we, we live in an age
where illness and deformity are common place and yet Ploppy, you are
without a doubt the most repulsive individual that I have ever met.
I would shake your hand but I fear it would come off.
MRP: There's no many bosses would be that considerate sir.
BA: Thank you Ploppy, I do my best. Now then woman. if indeed you are a
woman, what is your function on death row ?
MRSP: I'm the last meal cook Sir. The prisoners may ask for what they fancy
for there last meal.....
BA: And you cook for them what they desire ?
MRSP: Oh yes Sir, provided they ask for sausages. Otherwise they tend to get
a tiny bit disappointed. Sausages is all I got.
BA: You are clearly a woman of principle and compassion mistress eh ?
MRSP: Ploppy Sir.
BA: Ah, so you are married to...
MRSP: No, many people think that but it's pure coincidence. We did laugh
when first we found out. "Good morning" mistress Ploppy he'd say,
and I'd say "good morning ..
MRP&
MRSP: Mr. Ploppy" (both laugh)
BA: The long winter evenings must just fly by. Ah ! and you must be the
boy who makes the tea ?
MRP: Ah no Sir, he's the executioner but he does sometime make the tea.
BA: Yes, and your name is ?
B: Baldrick my Lord, but I'll change it to Ploppy if it'll make things
easier.
BA: No thank you. I can cope with more than one name. What are you doing
here ?
B: Well, it's a hobby
MRSP: It would be more, more fun Sir if he were to change his name. Give the
place a more family atmosphere.
BA: A family atmpsphere ? This is meant to be a place of pain and misery
and sorrow.
MRSP: That's what I mean Sir.
MRP: Eh, Mistress Ploppy is a bit of a social realist Sir.
BA: Now then, we're going to run a fast efficient operation and I intend to
do as little work as possible. My deputy Percy here will explain.
P: Good afternoon staff, my name is Lord Percy and if you play fair by me
you will find me a considerate employer, but if you cross me BY JOVE,
you ...
BA: Just tell'em the plan duckface.
P: My Lord, not in front of the staff.
BA: Get on with it.
P: Right Staff, as you know we are scheduled to execute Drake and
Ethingham on Monday, Lord Farrow on Wednesday and Buckingham and
Ponsonby on Friday. But in order to give us the middle of the week off,
Lord Blackadder has decided to move Farrow to Monday.
BA: Lets just say he's got time off for good behaviour.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Is Naturalism A Religion?

I recently came upon this article in the Baptist Press: FIRST-PERSON: Call Darwinism what it is -- a religion.

I have been hearing this and similar arguments for many years now. Sometimes I have heard such a point made with regards to atheists as in, “atheism is a religion” and made by Christian theologians with quite high pedigrees.

Nevertheless, while such an argument may satiate our minds and provide those of us who do believe with enough mental distraction to carry on the fight to proclaim the good news, the question needs to be asked and answered: Is Darwinism a religion?

This point is often made by those within the conservative (and particularly within the fundamentalist) community with very little evidence to substantiate such a claim. Perhaps because the buttressing of such a point as essential to the movement is not either warranted or desired is the reason why such evidence is lacking. The most popular opportunities for this argument to be made is when the “creationist” movement is dealt a popular setback, such as the recent judicial decision of the Katzmiller v. Dover case. Usually the decision of the judge is to argue that “creationism” is not a science but a religion. The knee-jerk response by many fundamentalists is to then reply: “Well, Evolution/Darwinism is a religion, too! So there!” And this is a really odd reply, but it does appear to give the fundamentalist movement some form of psychological satisfaction.

The proponents of “creationism” had spent much effort and argument attempting to persuade the courts, the media and the public that “creationism” is a science just like that of evolution. When the response of the courts, the media and the public is one of refutation (“No, ‘creationism’ is a religion.”), the “creationists” then respond by saying that evolution is a religion like “creationism”. Needless to say, this final reply to the debate undermines all for which the “creationists” said they were fighting. It also invalidates into futility all future attempts at persuading the public that “creationism” is a science.

In terms of giving the fundamentalist movement some form of “psychological satisfaction”, I suspect that the “evolution is a religion” response gives some people a sense of slight vindication in that they have found the irony of the result whose absurdity negates that result. Example:

“‘Creationism’ is a science just like evolution is a science. The judge says that evolution is a science but ‘creationism’ is a religion. But what the judge failed to realize is that evolution is a religion just like ‘creationism’. Such hypocritical irony reinforces the fact that we fundamentalists were right to begin with.”

And while such “psychological satisfaction” may be self-deluding and is certainly not a psychological reflex found solely among fundamentalists (EVERY one does it, including atheists), I do think that it is important for Christians, particularly those of a more conservative persuasion, to not fall into this reflex, asserting that Evolution/Darwinism is a religion.

And interestingly enough the author of this article is somewhat in agreement.

“When establishing a defense for the action of the school board, the legal team attempted to demonstrate that, scientifically, Intelligent Design was on the same par with Darwinism. They attempted to use scientific data to substantiate their strategy. But in a hostile court given to secular training and modern jurisprudence, this is like comparing the proverbial apple with an orange. You may score some verbal points with the home crowd but you will lose the court battle.”


This, I believe, is a good point; let me attempt summarize: The “creationist” legal team erred when attempting to argue that “creationism” is scientific as evolution which to the “hostile” court was like comparing apples to oranges.

But now consider the author’s solution to what the “creationist” legal team’s strategy should have been.

“The school district’s legal team should have invested more energy exposing Darwinism as the key tenet of a religion, namely secular Naturalism. It is this religion’s worldview that is espoused every day in our nation’s public education system and the vast majority of our nation’s public science educators are the missionaries for this religion that appeals to a student’s logic. … had the Dover Area School Board’s legal team used their time to expose Naturalism as religious bias in the public education environment, the judge would have been without excuse to accommodate Intelligent Design with Darwinism. Now we are stuck with a judicial opinion that will be referenced in future cases as further justification to purge Christian thought from the educational environment.”

This, I believe, is a self-contradicting point; let me attempt summarize both points in harmony: The “creationist” legal team erred in attempting to argue that “creationism” is as scientific as of evolution which to the “hostile” court was like comparing apples to oranges, when the “creationist” legal team should have attempted to argue that evolution was a religious like that of “creationism”. Presumably, the author thinks that this strategic argument would have faired better than “‘creationism’ is scientific” argument with the “hostile” court.

Why does the author think “evolution” is religious?

1) Evolution is illogical so in order to believe in evolution one must have faith.

“However, when one actually thinks about how unbelievable Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution really is, it becomes increasingly illogical. Think about it -- you start with dust particles, then rocks, then through a spontaneous event, water emerges, then oceans, then over millions, perhaps billions of years there is the spontaneous concoction of atoms and molecules to form the basic trace elements like carbon and calcium. Then to top it all off, the world spontaneously experiences the formation of one-celled life forms with intelligence. After many millions and millions of years, the one-cell forms spontaneously produce multi-celled beings and, by a freak of nature, humankind arrives on the landscape with the capacity to build buildings and computers and.... For one to believe that people are the result of a random chance of nature takes a real leap of faith.”

My response: This is a subjective statement. Simply because one believes a view to be illogical does not necessitate that the view is indeed illogical. Some people argue that Christianity is illogical; this does not make it so.

Furthermore, simply because someone takes a something on “faith” does not automatically qualify such action as a religion. 1) We go to work each day believing that we will not die without any sort of proof. Is going to work a religion, 2) We marry someone believing such a relationship to last a lifetime even though the evidence in our culture makes such an assumption illogical. Is marriage a religion? 3) We believe that particular political parties are sound despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Are political parties religions?

Finally, when we equate “illogic” as a designator of religion and faith we do a great disservice to religion and the Christian faith in particular. In order to ‘level” the playing field (so to speak) between religion and science you are not building up religion but tearing down science. And neither approach is warranted. You’re playing defensive and are admitting by suggestion that you believe science has the upper hand in the debate. And that is the problem: you appear to believe that atheistic evolution (or at least evolution by itself) is correct because you do not carry yourself as one who believes himself to be right.

2) Since one holding to evolution is doing so by faith, and since “many people” do so, this “many people” constitutes a religion.

“Just because many people are taught this nonsense and claim to believe it does not make it so. Nevertheless, they do believe it and because people place their faith in something, you have the formation of a religion, a worldview that filters everything they think.”

My response: Again, you are cheapening both religion and faith by reducing them to such trivialities. You are lessening religion in your attempts fit a science into such a category.

Furthermore, so many obviously non-religious entities can fit into such a pre-fabricated category: political parties, businesses, political action groups, benevolent societies, men’s and women’s clubs, sport’s teams, entertainment groups, unions, and the list goes on and on.

Also, if you are arguing that naturalism and evolution (and, by logical extension, the above categorically related groups) constitutes a religion then you are suggesting that any Christian who identifies themselves with such a group is committing idolatry. Are you prepared to go down that path?

Finally, if you are going to argue that naturalism/evolution is a religion then you must be prepared to adhere to the religious freedoms our nation guarantees to such religious groups. Are you prepared to give ample time to another religion?

And this presents another problem. In their desire to be formally recognized, the “creationists” are blurring the lines between religion and science. They equate the Christian fundamentalist faith with science and equate Naturalistic evolution science with religion. Are you really saying that the only way for your view to be recognized in American culture is to destroy the definitions of your view and your opponents view?

3) Just because many people do not recognize something as “something” does not mean that something isn’t “something. Meaning, just because evolution doesn’t fit the categories of what is generally regarded as a religion doesn’t mean that it isn’t a religion. (This works in reverse: Just because “creationism” doesn’t fit the categories of what is generally regarded as a science doesn’t mean that it isn’t a science.)

“Just because a religion doesn’t meet on Sunday and it doesn’t have steeples, seminaries or salvation, doesn’t mean Naturalism (Darwinism) is not a valid choice by people on the landscape of world religions. To illustrate, the United States is engaged in a war. The war against terror is not against an army of a national identity. The war is being waged with Al Qaeda. No one doubts the destruction and reality of this terrorist organization. Who can forget 9/11? Al Qaeda may not look like an army at war against the people of the United States, but we cannot, we will not forget the effect of their military actions against us.”

My response: see response #2.

4) The defining characteristics of a religion are “adherents, organizations and a philosophical agenda”.

“Educators, judges, politicians may not want to call Darwinism a religion, but it is. It has adherents, organizations and a philosophical agenda wrapped in scientific language. Since Darwinism is a religion, then evangelicals must continue to call on the courts to level the playing field of the public square.”

My response: see response #2.

The main problem with this argument is that he does not really designate what factors define a religion. And he can’t. If he did then he would not have an argument because naturalism/evolution does not fit these categories. What are the identifying features of a religion? Before we answer that question and see how naturalism/evolution (and science in general) fit into these categories, I think it would behoove us establish a working idea of what naturalism is. But even before this, I think we need to make clear the distinction that exists between knowledge by faith and knowledge by science.

In Christian theology “revelation” signifies divine self-disclosure in significant communication. Since this disclosure is unique and original, and its contents are unknown apart from the disclosure, it cannot be equated with human discovery. And this is an extremely important point.

Nineteenth century Christian liberalism understood that revelation was an act of the infinite God making contact with His finite creation. God by His very nature was one who could not be known accept by His self-disclosure. Man could not comprehend God or reason God. But if God is revealing Himself to man in order for man to understand Him then God would not be revealing Himself in a way that went beyond the reasoning of man. Therefore, all of the events and doctrines that were deemed to be beyond the reasoning of man were held to be false and not from the self-disclosing Creator. This included miracles and all supernaturalism, the incarnation, and the doctrine of the Trinity. This was a fatal error in 19th century liberalism and led to the idea of the imminence of God and the practical association of equating Man with God (see Hegel). It was not until the advent of neo-orthodoxy and the rediscovery of Kierkegaard’s writings that liberal Christianity began to readjust itself towards a transcendental distinction between God and Man; a distinction that was only mediated by the God-Man Jesus Christ. It was He who was/is the ultimate, unique and final revelation of God to man. And Jesus as the God-Man is God disclosing Himself and reaching down to Man and not Man reaching up to God (see Nikos Kazanzakis’s prologue to his book, The Last Temptation of Christ).

In this regard, revelation is that which man cannot know apart from the disclosing act of God. By definition, it is knowledge that man cannot reason by himself. In the Scriptures, we are given a record of God’s revelation to man of knowledge that man cannot reason on his own. And this is important to know.

Man can reason and come to conclusions about why Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city of Tyre. We can look at the recorded tablets of both sides and examine the archaeological evidence and come to generally acceptable conclusions. Nebuchadnezzar wanted access to Tyre’s seaport, the wealth of its riches, and a strategic military point in which to invade the southern reaches of Palestine. Man can arrive at this conclusion. But how can man learn that the greater reason for this attack on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar was in response to Tyre’s ill-treatment of Israel? How on earth can we know God’s divine plan accept by learning it from God Himself?

Man can reason how man emerged from the earth and developed into his present form. Man can examine thousands and millions of years of biological evidence and reasonable conclude that man developed out of careful biological changes over billions of years? Man can learn this for himself. But how can man discover who created him? How can man discover why he was created? How can man learn that he has worth and value and that he was created in the image of his Creator in order to relate to that Creator?

Man cannot know these things except by God revealing it to him. Science cannot reach these conclusions and has no desire to attempt such a task. More often than not, we are seeing in the Bible not a record of objective events written by man for the sake of the historical record, but, rather, subjective, religious Scriptures that are interpreting history for man by way of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are not answering scientific questions that can be learned by man himself but answering interpretive, spiritual questions of meaning and value that man cannot learn on his own.

Knowledge by faith comes by revelation of God and man being interacted with God.

In contrast, the scientific method gains knowledge by interaction with the creation and not the Creator, and can only answer questions about the physical and objective universe. It tries to give theories of the world which best fit the generally observable evidence. Furthermore, science by its very nature is based upon objective evidence and general consensus that can be presented repeatedly under defined circumstances by any individual in that general community. If a scientist has an experience that is subjective and cannot be repeatedly tested by others under certain defined circumstances then the scientist cannot study or reach publishable conclusions on such a phenomenon.

Having made this distinction between religion and science let me give a working definition of naturalism.

"Naturalism" refers to a number of different topics:

Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances which do not claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural necessarily do not exist or are wrong, but insist that they are not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses, and that both supernatural and natural phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods.

o Methodological naturalism assumes that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
o Ontological naturalism is the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists.
Ethical naturalism: the theory that ethical terms can be defined in non-ethical terms.
Humanistic naturalism: an outlook that places the emphasis upon a naturalism based upon scientific reasoning
Natural history: a broad area of the natural sciences concerned with living things.
Sociological naturalism: the view that the natural world and the social world are roughly identical and governed by similar principles.
Naturalism as an artistic style.
Naturalism as a literary, cinematic, or theatrical style.

I will focus on the broadest definition (the philosophical one) because I believe it to be the idea that the author of the article was referring.

The basic thrust of this philosophy is that all “supernatural” phenomena can be rationally explained in terms of natural causes.

I would agree with this idea in so far as it allows for the condition that the causes of some natural phenomena are currently beyond the reasoning of man. To argue that all phenomena that cannot be currently reasoned do not exist is unreasonable. It would be akin to a twenty-first century physicists agreeing that an 18th century physicists who argues that atoms do not exist because they cannot be proven to exist was correct because he was making this point in the eighteenth century.

Such a stance crosses over into areas of subjective experience which is beyond the bounds of science’s generally agreed territory. Such a stance would cause a breakdown in science. Galileo would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 17th century. Newton would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 18h century.

Einstein would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 20th century.

I do believe that the “miracles” recorded in Scripture happened the way in which it is recorded. I have no problem accepting the notion of a virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, feeding of 5000, walking on water and the parting of the Red Sea.

However, I do not see such “miracles” as “supernatural” in terms of breaking the laws of creation. I can well understand that the Creator knows His creation well enough to use its laws to enact events that appear to break the laws of creation and be “miraculous” to the finiteness of its creatures. What looks like a supernatural feeding five thousand could be (probably is) the cosmic equivalent of God pulling a quarter from the ear of a child. But, on the other hand, while I suspect that God does not enact events within His creation which break that creation’s previously defined rules, I certainly do not limit God to only this mode of interaction. My view of God working within the set laws of creation is based on the observation that God allows evil to persist and runs its course without an earlier, supernatural interaction. But this is simply a hunch.

So I have no problem with viewing the world in terms of naturalism in so far as it allows for the condition that the scope of possible reality is not limited to the reasoning of man. However, I do acquiesce to the standard that the scope of scientific study is within that limit of man’s reasoning. To this degree, scientific knowledge and revealed knowledge remains separate fields of discipline.

Interestingly enough, the initial rivalry between faith and science that previously existed during the 18th and 19th century as softened during the 20th century. As the natural sciences moved away from the deterministic Newtonian view of the world and entered into a far more undetermined and unpredictable view of creation, the idea that God could act in “supernatural” ways in this world and still maintain the consistency of creation became a far more credible notion. Further reasoned studies into the behavior of subatomic particles, relativity and now string theory lend further credence to the idea that the universe naturally behaves in such a manner that defies the reasoning of man. However, “religious miracles” still remained outside of science’s field of study and, therefore, remained unexamined. It is said that many fundamentalists today are fighting an argument they more or less won during the last century. Science has moved on; why can’t religion?

In this regard, I do not have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution because 1) I do not see it as contrary to the Scriptures because a) evolution is dealing with an issue separate from that which the Scriptures are concentrated and b) the differences in faith and science are such that I believe it is impossible for them to touch let alone contradict the other and because 2) the value that I place upon man is not based upon the method of his creation but by the value that God says He places upon him. With regards to this last point: a baby is not of more or less value if he or she is created by test tube or not. Similarly, Adam is not of more value than either Eve who was differently made from Adam’s rib or a contemporary person made by ordinary sexual reproduction. We as humans (let along Christians) do not discern value based upon method of creation but by the fact that the person is a human person. Evolutionary theory has not in the practical sense cheapened humanity’s sense of self value. In fact, if one looks at the history of mankind, one can see that a gradual progression in humanity’s sense of value. We certainly see this progression from the onset of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment eras. And I would argue that such a progression is due solely to the influence of Christian ethics upon the secular world. This is an ethic that evolutionary theory has done little to aggravate. Therefore, such value distinctions are made by man’s recognition of God’s revealed intent of creation and not by our own understanding of the method of that creation. This is why any future human perhaps made by cloning will not be of any lesser or greater value to either God or ourselves.

Having given a working definition of naturalism and what it involves and what its limitations are, let me offer some defining characteristics of religion.

Among those who study religions (both Christians and non-Christians) there is a general consensus among this field that there are certain defining characteristics common to religions. These characteristics may be shared with other belief systems, but taken together they make religion distinct.

1) Belief in Supernatural Beings:

Belief in the supernatural, especially gods, is one of the most obvious characteristics of religion. It’s so common, in fact, that some people mistake mere theism for religion itself; yet that is incorrect. Theism can occur outside of religion and some religions are atheistic (Buddhism for example; but this is atheism is more theoretical than practical as so many third world Buddhists are theists). Despite this, supernatural beliefs are a common and fundamental aspect to most religions, while the existence of supernatural beings is almost never stipulated in non-religious belief systems.

Science (and naturalism in particular) does not focus on the supernatural; its area of study is the realm of the natural and cannot be anything else.

The very fact that naturalism does not dabble in the “supernatural” is evidence enough that it cannot be a religion.

2) Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

Distinguishing between the sacred and the profane is so common and so important in religions that some have argued that this distinction should be considered the defining characteristic of religion. The creation of such a distinction can help direct believers to focus on transcendental values and supernatural aspects of the world around us. Sacred times, places, and object remind us that there is more to life than what we see.

Science (and naturalism in particular) does not and cannot make any distinctions between the sacred and profane. Such distinctions are not their area of expertise. Science and naturalism are objective disciplines of study and do not make subjective distinctions. By its very nature, science cannot make that distinction. And in terms of the Christian faith, such a distinction is not even made by the subjective man but is revealed to man by God in subjective experiences. The man who believes in the supernatural is not given the authority to decide the differences between sacred and profane; certainly the man who does not believe in the supernatural is not better able to make such distinctions from his own reason. Only God can make such interpretive distinctions and man can only agree to such a distinction when he receives that distinction as revelation from God (see Acts 10 for a primary example. Here Peter makes a sacred/profane distinction between clean and unclean foods and, by extension, between Jews and Gentiles. In this incident, God informs Peter that HE is the one who makes such distinctions and not man). The very fact that God is not within science’s area of study is evidence that such a characteristic is not tenable.

3) Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

But merely noting the existence of the sacred usually isn’t sufficient. If a religion emphasizes the sacred, then it will also emphasize ritual acts involving the sacred. Special actions must occur at sacred times, in sacred places, and/or with sacred objects. These rituals serve to unite members of the current religious community not just with each other, but also with their ancestors and their descendants (The primary example of such a ritual within Christianity is the Lord-instituted Communion meal which unites the Church, past, present and future, as the body of Christ and the separated community.). Rituals can be important components of any social group, religious or not, but can we find such a ritual among naturalism which neither makes sacred distinctions nor ritualizes such distinctions? If one were to suggest the scientific method as a viable candidate for a naturalistic ritual, one would also have to tend with other group-defining methods: textual exegesis, business trade, political campaigning, judicial review, musical composition, the Socratic method and method acting.

4) Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

Few religions don’t include some sort of basic moral code in their teachings. Because religions are typically social and communal in nature, it’s only to be expected that they also have directions about how people should behave and treat each other, not to mention outsiders. Justification for this particular moral code rather than any other usually comes in the form of the code’s supernatural origins, for example from gods which created both the code and humanity. For example, the Christian ethic of “love thy neighbor” comes from God and not man.

While science does have professional rules of engagement these rules are subject to change based upon the knowledge that they are not divine in nature. And such rules are found in any discipline or profession be it politics, law, business, education, research, war or medicine.

5) Characteristically Religious Feelings:

Awe, a sense of mystery, a sense of guilt, and adoration are “religious feelings” which tend to be aroused in religious believers when they come in the presence of sacred objects, in sacred places, and during the practice of sacred rituals. Usually these feelings are connected with the supernatural, for example it may be thought that the feelings are evidence of the immediate presence of divine beings. Like rituals, this attribute often occurs outside religion.

While I am sure that naturalists and scientists get great excitement from there discoveries, I do not think we should not cheapen man’s divine experience with God by equating it with man’s natural experience with his own intellect.

6) Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:

Because the supernatural is so often personalized in religions, it only makes sense that believers would seek interaction and communication. Many rituals, like sacrifices, are one type of attempted interaction. Prayer is a very common form of attempted communication which might occur quietly with a single person, loudly and publicly, or in the context of a group of believers. There is no single type of prayer or single type of effort to communicate, just a common desire to reach out.

Scientists by nature do not communicate through prayer or receive knowledge by revelation.

7) A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View:

It's normal for religions to present believers with a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. For example, religions can answer the question of whether the world exists for the believer or if they are bit players in someone else's drama. This picture will usually include some details of an overall purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into that as well — for example, are they supposed to serve the gods, or do the gods exist to help them along?

Naturalism does not provide a meaning or purpose to existence because such interpretations are outside the bounds of their focus and study. Scientists have no interest in such endeavors and do not pretend to offer answers to these questions. In truth, the only person who can provide such answers is God and in our lives He does so only by subjective faith and non-scientific methods.

8) A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:

Religions are so commonly organized socially that religious beliefs without a social structure have acquired their own label, “spirituality.” Religious believers often join together with like-minded adherents to worship, fellowship, or even live together. Religious beliefs are typically transmitted not just by family, but by an entire community of believers. Religious believers sometimes associate with each other to the exclusion of non-adherents, and may place this community at the center of their lives.

While naturalistic scientists may have a scientific community, it really cannot be classified as a religious community bound by the preceding religious characteristics.

Now the more characteristics that a belief system has, the more religion-like it is. Most commonly recognized religions — like Christianity or Hinduism — will have all of them. A few religions and a few manifestations of common religions will have 5 or 6 of them. Belief systems and other pursuits that are described as “religious” in a metaphorical way, like for example some people’s approach to sports, will exhibit 2 or 3 of these. Thus the entire gamut of religion as an expression of culture can be covered by this approach. For all these reasons naturalism and Darwinism cannot be considered a religion.
In conclusion, I want to make a strong point about this “creationism” issue.
Yes, “creationists” are diluting both science and religion by identifying naturalism as a religion.

Yes, “creationists” are undermining their argument by asserting that “creationism” is a science and science is a religion.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a clear understanding of the Scriptures’ purpose or its nature.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a proper understanding of how man receives various forms of knowledge.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a proper understanding of God’s defining characteristic categories of value.

Yes, all of these points are perceived to me to be errors, but there is even a greater error that is being made by our good-intentioned brothers and sisters in the “creationist” movement and it is to you that I address this conclusion.

By arguing that “creationism” is a scientifically viable option YOU ARE DAMAGING THE FAITH. You are accepting THEIR conditions by which Truth is recognized. You are suggesting that the Faith is untenable if it does not meet the standards set by other individuals, most of which are outside of the Faith. By agreeing to those terms, you set the Faith up to take a beating by not meeting those prefabricated standards.

Here is my parabolic example:

An Atheist states, “Christian, if your faith is true than you should be able to call down fire from heaven and burn that particular bush. If you cannot do so then your faith is invalid. The Christian responds, “Atheist, my faith is true and it will be proven to be so if I call down fire from heaven to burn that particular bush (because such proof was given by Ezekiel on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings 18 of the Bible).” Then the Christian calls for fire to come down from heaven and burn that particular bush. But nothing happens. So the Atheist responds, “By the standards of truth that you agreed upon your faith (and the Bible which proclaims that faith) is not true.” So the Christian decides to spend the rest of his life trying to convince the Atheist that despite what both the Atheist and Christian saw fire actually did indeed come down from heaven and burn that particular bush thus confirming the truth of the Christian’s faith (and the Bible which proclaims that faith).

In the outcome, the Atheist is no closer to the Kingdom, other non-believers are pushed away from a faith they perceive to be based in absurdity, and the Christian wastes both his witness and his ministry chasing after wind. The Atheist and other non-believers are damned and spend their lives chasing after wind; why should the redeemed Christian join them in mock-ministry?

Do you want to convince people to believe in the God of the Bible and the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? Well, don’t force yourself into school curriculum; go out and witness to the world by proclaiming the Gospel. There is no other way.