Friday, November 11, 2005
The Abandonment of Hell
A few weeks ago I posted a brief commentary on the 2000 Southern Baptist Faith and Message. In my commentary on the subject of “Last Things”, this is what was posted:
“God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. …Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly [and physically] …the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell [“Hell” refers to the place of punishment both temporal and eternal. Temporal punishment is the physical and spiritual conscious punishment for sins against God and Man. Eternal punishment is described in the Scriptures as “destruction” and “the second death.” The unbeliever will be annihilated and punished with non-existence for all eternity.] and …The righteous… will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven [not just heaven, but also Earth] with the Lord.”
In response to this, a friend requested that I provide Scriptural basis for my belief of “annihilationism”. Therefore, I thought this was a good opportunity to explore this issue in some greater depth.
I offer three arguments for the Scriptural teaching of annihilation.
Before discussing the first argument, allow me to give my definition of “annihilationism”. As you may know, there are various views on the subject of annihilationsim. Just like views of inerrancy, atonement, and church polity, various people have various views on annihilationism.
B.B. Warfield’s analysis of the three views of annihilationism is the most well-known treatment.
The view of what can be described as classical “annihilationism” teaches that man is created immortal and fulfills his destiny in salvation, while the wicked cease to exist either by direct act of God or by the corrosive effect of evil.
This is not the view that I hold. I do not believe that man was created to be naturally immortal and I certainly to not believe that Scripture teaches this. The view that I hold would be closer to the view of “conditional immortality.”
Conditional immortality teaches that humans are naturally mortal and God imparts to the redeemed the gift of immortality, allowing the rest of humanity to cease to exist. The difference then between classical annihilationism and conditional immortality is that the first believes that all are created eternal and the unsaved will cease to exist and the latter believes that all are created temporal and the only the saved will be given eternal life.
At death, both the believer and the unbeliever will pass into non-existence, only to be resurrected (or more precisely re-created) at the Final Judgment. The believer will be resurrected into a glorified body (like Jesus’ glorified body at His resurrection) and the unbeliever will be resurrected into an un-glorified body (like Lazarus and his resurrected body). God, who alone is immortal, will pass on the gift of immortality (eternal life) to the believer, who will live forever in glory, while the unbeliever will ultimately face a second death of non-existence.
Having given the definition of annihilation to which I hold, I will now proceed to my first argument.
Scriptural Evidence:
When I have read through all the passages of the Bible that speak of the death of the wicked and those passages that have been traditionally viewed as giving evidence for hell as a place of eternal conscious torment, I begin to understand why it is that we evangelicals have traditionally held to this particular view of eternal punishment.
I think it is important that when we read about the eternal punishment as revealed in Scripture that we take the Bible as “literal” when it needs to be taken as such and “figurative” or symbolic when this method of interpretation is warranted. In this, there appears to be two passages in the Bible that can arguably refer to “eternal torment of the wicked”, one which is found in a figurative parable, the other which is found in the symbolic apocalypse of John. However, even when taking these figurative passages literally, there are a number of problems in the passage itself that leads one away from this notion. It is always somewhat precarious to interpret apocalyptic passages literally.
Therefore, before dealing with these two figurative passages, I must first deal with the more literal passages that make up 99% of the Scriptural teachings. And I interpret the passages literally. When the Bible says that the unredeemed will be dead, then this is what I am taking as literal death and not a figure of speech. They will be destroyed and will not be given eternal life.
Let’s look at the term “eternal life.” This is the promise of hope that we have in Christ. The promise is that we will not remain dead when we die but will be raised up from death to live with God eternally. Therefore, the unredeemed (those who are not in Christ) will not inherit eternal life, they will inherit eternal death. What is “eternal death”? They will be dead eternally. They will cease to live forever. They will not be alive. They will be dead. What is the opposite of eternal life? It is eternal death. We take eternal life as literal life. We need to take eternal death as literal death. If someone is conscious then he is not dead; he is alive. He may not be in the most pleasant circumstances but he is not dead. The people who endured Auschwitz were not dead; they endured and were alive. Those who were killed in Auschwitz were no longer living but dead. As dead they were no longer living and no longer enduring; they were dead. Those who endured and did come out the other end were living and lived. They were not dead while they were enduring. Such a person may wish to be dead but he is not dead. Dead is dead and life is life. The hope we have in Christ is not hope of a soul-less body after death any more than Jesus Christ’s resurrection was of a soul-less body after death. We the redeemed, just as Christ, anticipate a body/spirits resurrection in a glorified body/spirits that will no longer suffer the perishing effects of death. Those who are not redeemed will not be resurrected in a glorified body/spirits that no longer suffer the perishing effects of death. There bodies/spirits do suffer the perishing effects of death and they do perish and receive death. If their body/spirits did not suffer the perishing effects of death and did not die then they would have some form of a glorified body that did not fully perish and did not die. The wages of sin is death but in Christ we have eternal life. This is all pretty clear.
The Scriptures are very clear that humans die and were always meant to be mortal. Despite what Greek and pagan philosophies state, the soul is not immortal.
In Genesis, we are told that man was created from dust and his body returns to dust.
Genesis 3:19: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.”
That man’s body returns to death by its own mortal condition is the direct teaching of Scripture.
Genesis 3:22: “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.”
Man dies not because he was immortal and made mortal by the Fall. Rather, man was mortal and was kept from dying by access to the tree of life. The only tree that man was not to eat from was the tree of knowledge; he could eat from the tree of life and did. It was the tree of life that kept him from dying. When man did eat from the tree of knowledge, to prevent him from continuing to live without death, God blocked man’s access from the tree of life. We die because we are mortal and do not have to the tree of life. The punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge was death from not eating from the tree of life. This is what the Genesis account clearly states. Man is naturally mortal and naturally dies.
God’s intention is for us to find our life in Him and not in ourselves. God is the source of eternal life. When we do not go to God then get what is naturally coming to us: death and our natural return to dust. We were created out of the same ground as that of the animals. God chose to give us a spirit and created us out of his image. We are able to have a relationship with God. However, if we choose not to have a relationship with Him, then He gives us up to our own desires and we return to the dust of the ground just like the animals.
In Eccle. 3:19-21 says, "For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; even one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other; yet they all have one breath; so that man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth."
Eccle. 9:5 says, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward: for the memory of them is forgotten."
Oftentimes sinful man is referred to in terms of being an animal. God often notes that man who is created in His image prefers to act like animals not created in His image. If those men continue in doing so, then they will fact the same consequences. Death.
The dead are dead. They go down to Sheol in the Old Testament and Hell/Gehenna in the New. This is the place is the grave. It is in the earth because that is where the body rots into dust. The body perishes and is destroyed by worms.
The Greek word “apollumi” conveys total annihilation. The verb “apollumi” means "destroy," and the noun “apoleia” means "destruction." Matthew 2:13, 12:14, and 27:4, which refer to Herod's desire to destroy the baby Jesus, and the later Jewish plot to have Him executed. Matthew 10:28 (cf. James 4:12): "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy “apolesai” both soul and body in hell." This "destruction" is a reference to the soul's total annihilation in hell. Notice contrast between believers and unbelievers. If believers are “hoi sozomenoi” (those who are being saved), then unbelievers are “hoi apollumenoi” (those who are perishing). This phrase occurs in 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3, and in 2 Thessalonians 2:10. This language of destruction points to the total annihilation of the unredeemed.
What then am I saying? I am saying that the teaching of Scripture in its entirety and in its natural, literal meaning is of literal death for the unredeemed. A death of dust and of the grave. When we read in the Scriptures of the unredeemed facing eternal punishment, we need to realize that this punishment is, in fact, eternal: eternal unconscious, non-existent death in the ground as dust and nothing more. Total annihilation.
Responding to Arguments Against Annihilationism:
There are various Scriptural references that people cite when opposing the idea of annihilation.
One is Mark 9:43-48:
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
First, the fire that Jesus is referring to is Gehenna, the garbage dump outside Jerusalem that continued to burn. The Greek word that Jesus is using here in “geenna” and not “hades”. As we shall see, hell(hades) refers to the grave where the dead reside until the resurrection and hell(geena) which is the place of final punishment for the unredeemed. Gehenna is referred to in the Old Testament as the valley of Hinnom where detestable acts of sin were committed. This is why the Jews eventually turned it into a dump to burn garbage.
2 Chronicles 28:3: “Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.”
2 Chronicles 33:6: “And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.”
No one doubts that this is the case. Even conservative scholars who do not believe in annihilationism believe that Jesus is using Gehenna as a metaphor for hell as “eternal conscious torment.” Annihilationists also see Gehenna as a metaphor, but not as “eternal conscious torment.”
The phrase that non-annihilationists use to prove their view is “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Because the fire does not cease and the worm does not die, it is assumed that the person will not cease being tormented and will not die … even though he is dead.
However, this phrase, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched”, is a direct quotation of Isaiah 66:24 which reads: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”
The very Old Testament verse that Jesus is citing to describe the final state of the wicked is one that states the transgressors are dead carcasses being eaten by worm and being burnt up by fire.
Remember this is a metaphor based on a well-known place in Palestine. The fire burned continually and the worms ate the carcasses of animals like at any town dump. Even those who believe in a non-annihilationist hell do not really believe that it is a place of immortal worms. They see this as a metaphor describing the torment.
But what does a worm do to a dead body? Worms are known for eating a body in the grave. That is why we refer to dead bodies as “worm food.”
The imagery of fire does not refer to conscious torment. The main function of fire is not to cause pain but to secure destruction, as in the case of an incinerator. The Bible speaks of a "consuming fire" and of "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17). Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which is to completely consume the dead body.
Southwestern’s own E. Earle Ellis holds to conditional immortality. He sees the eternal punishment as having eternal effect. The fire and the worm are eternal because their effects are eternal, i.e., eternal consumption as eternal annihilation. The body of the unredeemed will always be destroyed and always be dust because it will always be burnt up, worm food never to be resurrected again into consciousness again.
The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man - Luke 16:19-31
This parable by Jesus appears to confirm that the afterlife for the unredeemed is one of torment.
“the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off … And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.” (16:22,23, 24-25)
However, there are numerous problems with such an interpretation.
1) This story is a parable and they are not to be always taken as literally true, especially if it appears to contradict the rest of the teachings of Scripture.
2) Lazarus is the only character in all of Jesus’ parables that is ever named. Even the rich man in this parable is not named. Lazarus was a common character in 1st century parables and stories. Lazarus would be equivalent to Jack in the various fairy tales (i.e., Jack and the Beanstalk, Jack and Jill, Jack Sprat, Little Jack Horner, etc.). That Jesus is adopting this well-known character for the purposes of illustration should be of no surprise. It should also be of no surprise that for the purposes of His parable, he uses parts of the story that are not factually correct as it accurately reflects reality. He is simply adopting the current understanding of his audience to make His point. For instance, Jesus tells the parable of the mustard seed stating that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. Technically it isn’t. There are plenty of other seeds in the world that are smaller that were unknown to first century Jews. But to them, the mustard seed was the smallest. The inaccuracy of the statement made by Jesus does not mean that Jesus erred; that isn’t the purpose of the parable. In terms of the parable of Lazarus, we have a lot of 1st century Jewish fables in this story that Jesus adopts for His purpose. This is why Lazarus is named. This is why Lazarus goes to Abraham’s Bosom and not heaven. This is why Abraham’s Bosom is only mentioned here in Scripture and nowhere else. This is why Abraham is mentioned and given such a prominent place. This is why there is a gulf between Abraham’s bosom and “hell”. This why individuals in both places can communicate across the gulf. These are all prominent features in the typical Jewish fable. We should not invest too much theology into this particular afterlife configuration.
3) We are not dealing here with the final resting places of the redeemed and unredeemed. This is a symbolic and fictional story representing Sheol, the grave. The term “hell” here is from the Greek word, “hades”. This is the Greek translation of the Jewish afterlife of Sheol. Throughout the Old Testament, Sheol is the place where the dead lie asleep until the resurrection. It is not synonymous with Gehenna/the Lake of fire. Both the redeemed and unredeemed go to Sheol of which the Old Testament bears witness. It is the ground, the grave, the earth from which dust returns to dust. In Old Testament Hebrew poetry, Sheol/grave/hades/hell is a physical place sometimes at the bottom of the ocean (Jonah 2) but mostly under the ground. Sheol is death and not consciousness. Paul frequently refers to those believers who have died as being asleep (i.e., soul sleep) and that they will be resurrected again on the last day. When Saul went to the witch of Endor, Samuel was summoned out of his “quiet” in the earth (1 Samuel 28). Sheol is where all the unredeemed and redeemed currently reside from Adam to whoever until the second coming of Christ. It is death as dust and complete unconsciousness.
4) And this one goes with the above point. The intermediate state that is taught in the Old and New Testament by both prophets and apostles, from Moses to Paul, is one of unconsciousness. Torment is not a factor.
5) There appear to be two points to this story that Jesus had in mind. First, there will be a role reversal in the afterlife. The first shall be last and the last shall be first.
Luke 16:25: “But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.”
Second, there is a foreshadowing of the resurrection here. Jesus is saying through Abraham that if the Old Testament Scriptures do not persuade people of the gospel, then one who rose from the dead (i.e., Jesus) will not.
Luke 16:31: “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
For these reasons, it is quite difficult to suggest that this symbolic parable accurately reflects the final state of the unredeemed as “eternal conscious torment”.
Revelation
I believe that the Apocalypse of John offers the best argument for the existence of a hell that involves “eternal conscious torment”.
The book of Revelation is interesting in that it is the only in all of the New Testament almost wholly devoted to the apocalyptic genre. What is more, Revelation is also considered by many to be the most “Jewish” of the New Testament books. This consideration is not limited to its genre of prophecy and apocalypse but also to its use of various Old Testament prophetic and apocalyptic images and phrases.
What has amazed me most about my recent studies of the final placement of the unredeemed is how much of the Scripture’s teachings on this subject that we conservatives have not taken as literal. I have found that the overwhelming amount of Scripture evidence points directly to annihilation. The only Scriptural passages that really provide the non-annihilationist with the weight of his argument are prophetic and apocalyptic passages which are not supposed to be taken as literal. I’ve started to see this as a problem among conservatives: we take apocalyptic passages as literal but take the Sermon on the Mount as figurative. We take a woman popping out of a man’s rib as literal but take the commandment not to sue another believer as figurative. This is not good.
But let us focus on the destruction of the wicked in the Apocalypse of John.
In Revelation 19:20 and 20:10, the False prophet, the Beast (anti-Christ), and the Dragon (Satan) are cast into the “lake of fire” to be tormented forever and ever.
“And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.”
“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
Previously, in 14:9b-11, the worshippers are tormented for ever and ever.
“If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”
These verses appear to be a foreshadowing of what is to come because after the Beast and the False Prophet are cast away in 19:20, and the Satan is cast away in 20:10, death and hell are cast away in 20:14 and, finally, those not found in the book of life (i.e., the unredeemed) are cast away into the lake of fire in 20:15.
20:14-15: “And Death and Hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Therefore, 14:9-11 is a foreshadowing of 20:14-15. These passages are the basis for the view that the unredeemed will receive “eternal conscious torment”. However, there are numerous problems with this passage as evidence:
1) Again, the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic book. Apocalyptic literature has various distinguishing features, one of which is the presentation of spiritual and historical truths in s symbolic and exaggerated manner. Individuals are often portrayed as animals, groups of people are often portrayed as individuals, concepts are given anthropomorphic features, and various numerical values are given symbolic and imprecise features (wraths comes in 7s, the saints are 144 thousand, an army amounts to 200 million, and the kingdom of God is 1000 yrs). Some conservatives have always found this lack of exactness distasteful, expecting modern precision to be found in ancient religious documents. The problem is that such documents have no interest in such precision because that is not their point; rather, they want to convey a truth about an event or object and use numbers to convey that truth. Because of these factors, just as with parables, we must always approach apocalyptic literature with some caution.
2) How does one “torment” a concept like “Death” and “Hades”? John Stott on Revelation 20:10 declares, "The beast, the false prophet and the harlot, however, are not individual people but symbols of the world in its varied hostility to God.” While some people might object to the notion that the beast and the false prophet are symbols, the Harlot, Death and Hades are other matters entirely.
Babylon is referred to as the mother of all harlots and is the apocalyptic embodiment of false religion in the book of Revelation. In the Old Testament (most notably in Hosea), the Lord God frequently refers to idol-worshipping Israel as a harlot and adulteress. The exact identification of Babylon in this book is of no concern to the present argument.
While one may argue that the False Prophet and the Beast are actual individual persons, it is quite a different matter with the Harlot. She is referred to as a harlot and a city and embodies the notion false religion. But look at how she is pictured in Revelation.
18: 8, 9: “Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her. And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,”
18:15: “The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,”
18:18: “And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What [city is] like unto this great city!”
19:3: “And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.”
This is interesting. The woman is a harlot, a city, and a false religion. How does one “utterly burn with fire” a false religion? How are a city and a false religion tormented? How does a city and a false religion weep and well? How can the smoke of a destroyed city and a destroyed religion rise “up for ever and ever”?
Are we to take these images and metaphors literally or figuratively?
This question is even more pressing when we move to the destruction of Death and Hades in 20:14.
“And Death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”
The term Hell that is used here is best translated as Hades. As previously mentioned, “Hades” refers to the “grave,” the place where the body and spirits of the dead both redeemed and unredeemed wait until the resurrection at the second coming of Christ. This term is synonymous with the Old Testament term, “Sheol”.
The various places where “hades” or “hell” is meant to refer to the grace are: Acts 2:27, Acts 2:31, 1 Cor 15:55, and, of course, Luke 16:23.
Again, hell/Hades/Sheol/grave needs to be distinguished from hell/Gehenna/lake of fire. These are not the same. How could one cast hell into hell?
Regardless, how can one cast Death and Hades/Grave into the “lake of fire”? Since Death and Hades are not individual persons … can they literally be cast into a “lake of fire”? … can they be tormented for ever and ever? If not, can we then say that this is not literal but a figurative assertion that God will be destroying the concepts of death and the grave forever?
3) Another problem with taking this passage literally is use of the “forever and ever.” It is true that this term “forever” can certainly mean eternity. There are numerous places in the Old and New Testament that speak of God as existing “forever” and that we shall be with Him “forever” and the logical interpretation is that this term should taken as literal eternity. However, this term does not always refer to a literal eternity. Often times, especially in prophetic and apocalyptic literature, the term “forever” can refer to a very long time but not literally “forever”. More importantly, in prophetic and apocalyptic literature the eternal effects of utter destruction can be spoken of in terms of eternity.
For example, Isaiah 34:9-10 refers to the nation of Edom’s destruction. “And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.”
Now Edom no longer exists. It hasn’t existed for over two thousand years. The very last traces of the Edomites were extinguished during the Jewish-Roman Wars. We can still pass through the region of the Edomites; it is still in Palestine. There is not smoke coming up out of the land and so it’s not going up forever. Is the Bible in error? No, of course not. This idea of the smoke going up forever and ever reflects the idea that the destruction of Edom is permanent and its destruction is forever. The “eternal” smoke reflects the eternity of their destruction and not the eternity of its “burning”.
And this metaphor does apply to the land and not the people. In 34:3, the dead people of Edom are referred to as inactive souls. “Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcasses, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.”
Here are more prophetic instances of such exaggerating for effect:
Isaiah 13:19-20: “And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.”
Jeremiah 15:18: “Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, [which] refuseth to be healed? wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, [and as] waters [that] fail?”
Jeremiah 50:39 (against Babylon): “Therefore the wild beasts of the desert with the wild beasts of the islands shall dwell [there], and the owls shall dwell therein: and it shall be no more inhabited for ever; neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation.”
Lamentations 5:20: “Wherefore dost thou forget us for ever, [and] forsake us so long time?”
Amos 1:11: “Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever:”
Job 4:19-20: “How much less [in] them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation [is] in the dust, [which] are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding [it].”
Job 20:7: “[Yet] he shall perish for ever like his own dung: they which have seen him shall say, Where [is] he?”
Habakkuk 1:4: “Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth.”
Isaiah 66:24: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”
Of course, this last verse was cited by Jesus in Mark 9:43-48:
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
Again, both these passages in Isaiah and Mark describe the final state of the wicked as one where transgressors are dead carcasses being eaten by worms and being burnt up by fire. Like the smoke that goes up forever, the unquenching fire and the undying worm reflect not eternal effects of the punishment of annihilation.
This is why Dr. Ellis sees the eternal punishment as having eternal effect. The fire and the worm are eternal because their effects are eternal, i.e., eternal consumption as eternal annihilation.
Again, in Revelation 19:3 we read of the destruction of the Harlot: “And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.”
4) Another problem with this passage as evidence for eternal punishment as “conscious torment” goes back to teachings of Scripture on annihilation that we described above in the Scriptural evidence section and how such teachings are reflected in the Apocalypse of John.
As previously stated, one of the primary doctrines of the Christian faith it that the believer will receive “eternal life” and the unbeliever will not receive eternal life, i.e. death. So if the unbeliever will exist forever in some state of conscious (however tormenting it may be) then the unbeliever will also receive “eternal life”, just not a “great” eternal life.
Again, I think to often that we take the term “death” in much of Scripture as merely symbolic and not literal. Here in Revelation, the literalness of death is figuratively exaggerated for effect. But even in these configurations, the basic meaning of eternal life versus death is apparent.
In 20:15, unbelievers are destroyed after being resurrected. The first death is the death that comes upon each and every person redeemed or unredeemed. This is death by old age, disease, accident, murder, war and even martyrdom. This first death happens to all. At some point in the future, all who have died will be resurrected and judged by God. Between this first death and the resurrection, the bodies of both redeemed and unredeemed are dust in the ground, resting in Sheol, Hades, the grave, et al. At the return of Christ, all will be resurrected, the unredeemed will be resurrected into their earthly bodies (like Lazarus’ resurrected earthly body, for example) and the redeemed will be resurrected to a glorified body (like Jesus’ resurrected body). Those who have faith in God through Christ are in Christ and identified by God through Christ. We are redeemed by God because we are in Christ. That Christ was resurrected to a glorified body means that we will be resurrected to a glorified body. That we were in Christ at His death and resurrection means that we were crucified with Him and were resurrected with Him. We took part in that resurrection.
20:6: “Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”
Though the redeemed die just as the unredeemed do (from dust to dust, the first death), the hope of the redeemed is resurrection into glory. Because the redeemed have faith in Christ and are part of the first resurrection (i.e., the resurrection of Christ) the second death has no power over them, i.e., they are resurrected into a glorified and imperishable body that will not be wasted away or be subject to death. The second death is for the unredeemed who have died and are resurrected (ala Lazarus) and who, following judgment by their creator, will be annihilated by death, i.e., the second death. The second death has not power over the redeemed who take part in the first resurrection. Therefore, the redeemed are given eternal life and unredeemed are given eternal death. As 20:15 says, “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Those whose names were not written in the book of life are not given life but death in the lake of fire. If the unredeemed are not annihilated then they are not dead but alive. If they are alive then their names must be written in the book of life because they are not dead. To argue that the Scriptures teach that the unredeemed will continue to exist and not be destroyed suggests universalism and a denial that the eternal punishment of the wicked is in fact complete separation from God.
However, in 21:4, John prophecies that at some point in the future there will be no more death:
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
These are the reasons why we must not assume that “conscious torment ‘forever’” is the meaning of these prophetic and apocalyptic images of punishment in Revelation. If we are to search for the proper interpretation of these scriptures in the rest of Scripture it becomes quite obvious that “eternal conscious torment” is not the proper interpretation of the punishment in Revelation.
I do not see how anything other than annihilation is scripturally defensible. The entire Bible (First Testament and Second Testament) and all the prophets and apostles and even Jesus Himself advocate the annihilation of the unredeemed.
So how do I account for the existence of a traditional view of “everlasting conscious torment” that has been the predominant view of the church for the last two thousand years?
The simplest reason for this phenomenon is the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul that comes from Platonic philosophy. This theory is brought into Christian theology by way of 2 or 3 misinterpreted passages and is read into the rest of Scripture that refers to eternal punishment of the unbeliever.
Plato taught that the soul was immortal and could not be destroyed. The Church Fathers who were heavily influenced by the philosophy of their day (both for and against) adopted this idea that the human soul could not be destroyed. The Christian idea of eternal life for the redeemed seemed to confirm the legitimacy of Plato’s theory. But what about the unredeemed? The Church Fathers theorized that since a human soul could not be destroyed then the eternal punishment of the wicked must be conscious torment for eternity. And a few misunderstood verses confirmed their theory. Therefore, eternal punishment also meant eternal life. However, today we believe that if God can create a soul, He can certainly destroy it. We just choose to assume that while He can destroy a soul, He chooses not to.
But the endurance of our idea of hell has lasted 2000 years and is still the majority opinion. Doesn’t the ideas endurance lend to its truthfulness?
The endurance of an idea does play a tremendous factor in its believability but not its truthfulness. For example, here are some other enduring beliefs that we presently reject as false:
Non-perseverance of the saints: this view has last for 2000 years.
The papal authority of the Roman Bishop: this is a view that dominated Western Christendom from 300 to 1500.
Purgatory: this lasted for half a millennium.
Perpetual virginity: this is a view that began in the second century AD (100s) just after the death of the last apostle and continued well into the Protestant Reformation.
Ransom theory of atonement: the view dominated Christendom for 1200 years.
Hell as a place where demons punish humans and not a place where demons are all punished: this view about the nature of hell dominated Christian thought up until a few hundred years ago.
There are many other examples but these suffice.
Reasoning Arguments:
The reasoning of man is always subject to the authority of Scriptural revelation. Christian reasoning must remain within the bounds of revelation. However, reason does enable us to question the accuracy of our interpretation of Scriptural revelation.
The idea of annihilation in the form of conditional immortality can be found in the writing of Justin Martyr (d. 165) and Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185) and Amobius (d. 330). The Second Council of Constantinople (553) and later the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) condemned the idea. Since the Reformation, Annihilationism has periodically surfaced, as in the 1660 confession of the General Baptists. However, it must be stated that annihilationsim has always been the minority view in orthodox Christianity. This in itself should give us pause.
With regards to Justin Martyr, his belief in annihilationism appears to have stemmed from his rejection of Platonic philosophy. Coming from a background steeped in Greek philosophy, following his conversion to Christianity, Justin Martyr abandoned much of his prior Neo-Platonism and frequently taught against syncretism in theology. Justin rejected the Platonic view that the soul was naturally immortal and could not be destroyed as being unsubstantiated by Scripture. He believed that the introduction of this view into the Church’s teachings was a result of the influence of Greek philosophy into the church and not from a non-Platonic reading of Scripture.
Therefore, Justin Martyr believed that the eternal punishment that came at the end of time was the annihilation of the soul (the soul being both the body and the spirit as a whole). Yet, though Justin Martyr held to annihilation as the final state of the separation of the unredeemed from God, he used the terms “eternal fire”, “eternal punishment” to designate this final state.
More recent proponents of annihilationism are John Stott, Clark Pinnock, Edward Fudge, Michael Green, Robert Brow, John Wenham, Nigel Wright, and Southwestern’s own E. Earle Ellis.
The most common reasoned argument that annihilationists suggest for their position is that it would be unjust for God to inflict everlasting torture on His creatures. Clark Pinnock regards the concept of endless punishment as "morally flawed" and a "moral enormity." Eternal punishment as endless torment represents a punishment far in excess of the offense committed. John Stott maintains that if this teaching were true, there would be "a serious disproportion between sins consciously committed in time and the torment consciously experienced throughout eternity." Likewise, Pinnock states, "it would amount to inflicting infinite suffering upon those who have committed finite sin. It would go far beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. There would be a serious disproportion between sins committed in time and the suffering experienced forever." Such punishment is totally incompatible with the character of God. It would "serve no purpose" and be an act of "sheer vengeance and vindictiveness," which is "out of keeping with the love of God revealed [in the Scriptures]."
There are usually two counter arguments for this “justice argument”:
1) Whether or not this form of justice makes sense to humans is irrelevant to the reality that is expressed in the Scriptures. We have to take this revelation on faith and assume that God is just.
2) Those who argue against eternal torment for the unredeemed on moral and judicial grounds do not fully grasp the severity of sin and how serious God treats this form of rebellion.
Here is my counter-counter argument:
While it is true that whether or not this form of justice makes sense is ultimately irrelevant to the reality that is expressed in the Scriptures, it is also true that we do expect God to be just when dispensing punishment. And while it is possible that we do in fact fully grasp the severity of sin, we do fully grasp the supposed punishment.
We are not simply taking about a lifetime of the Spanish Inquisition. We are speaking about a form of conscious torment that will gone on for trillions and trillions of years which is only a drop of water in a sea of infinity. Is this who God is?
Allow me to give a relevant example:
We evangelical Baptists believe that a person must make a sincere profession of faith to God in order to be saved. This means that if an 70 year old man dying of cancer makes a sincere profession of faith on his deathbed that he will be saved. This also means that a person who ignores the call of God for most of his life and dies in a car wreck at the age of thirty without excepting God’s grace, he will be damned.
Now the problem that has always haunted believers-baptism is the issue of young children. If a four-year old child dies in a car wreck without making a profession of faith, does this child get sent to a tormenting punishment for all eternity?
Roman Catholics and other mainline denominations have never had this problem. They all believe in infant baptism. The mainline Protestant denominations articulate this practice as being a symbol of the covenant relationship of the family where the parents resolve to bring their child up in the ways of the faith. The infant baptism is more like a baby dedication. But, even those these infants and young children have not made a formal profession of faith, they are said to be elected by God and that if they did make it to a greater age of accountability they would give such a formal profession. A child brought up in a Christian home is said to be sanctified (1 Corinthians 7), and, therefore, will not be damned if it dies.
Since Baptists practice believer’s baptism we have a more difficult time solving the problem of the death of children prior to profession.
Most Christians hold to the Augustinian view of original sin which asserts that all humans biologically inherit a sinful nature and are, therefore, condemned by our very birth into the world. We are born with sinful natures prior to ever sinning and if it wasn’t for the grace of God, we would be damned by our very nature prior to ever sinning. I do not hold this particular view of original sin but it is the most common interpretation. This view states that an infant or toddler who dies prior to ever sinning or even dies prior to fully understanding that he is a sinner in need of a saviour, that infant or toddler will be damned if he dies. It was from this view of sin that infant baptism began; it saved children from hell.
But what about children who do not get a chance to be baptized by their Christian parents? What about fetuses which die in utero? What about the infants and toddlers of unbelieving parents?
Baptists have tended to hold to a view of the age of accountability. This is an unscriptural view that God will not damn for all eternity a child who is not given the chance to accept God’s grace. But why do we hold to this view? Why? Because we cannot believe that God would be so unjust as to have a two-day old baby die and immediately enter into eternal conscious torment without any understanding of why its there simply due to the fact that that its parents copulated. To think that God would be so cruel and unjust is beyond our comprehension. WE ARE NOT MORE JUST THAN GOD. Look at the history of the world both in and outside of the Bible. Believers are constantly beseeching God to punish various people and questioning why God is being so gracious to such wicked and unrighteous people. We do not believe that God would be so unjust to a child even though we admit that they have a sinful nature and are under the curse of Adam.
...
Yet we will not question that God would punish with eternal conscious punishment a Native American youth who is killed by mountain lion in the year 600 B.C. We do not like it, we do not understand it, but we do not question it. Again, as we look through the Scriptures we see that believers are often questioning God’s justice. Not that God is overly penal but that He is overly gracious.
If we do take the Bible literally when it speaks of “death” as punishment for the wicked than we solve a lot of the questions about the justice of God.
These are the reasons why I believe the Scriptures (both Old and New) teach the annihilation of the unredeemed and do not advocate hell as “eternal conscious torment” as their punishment.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Dark City
An absolutely fantastic film and one of my personal favourites.
BY ROGER EBERT / November 6, 2005
"Dark City" by Alex Proyas resembles its great silent predecessor "Metropolis" in asking what it is that makes us human, and why it cannot be changed by decree. Both films are about false worlds created to fabricate ideal societies, and in both the machinery of the rulers is destroyed by the hearts of the ruled. Both are parables in which a dangerous weapon attacks the order of things: a free human who can see what really is, and question it. "Dark City" contains a threat more terrible than any of the horrors in "Metropolis," because the rulers of the city can control the memories of its citizens; if we are the sum of all that has happened to us, then what are we when nothing has happened to us?
In "Dark City" (1998), all of the human memories are newly fabricated when the hands of the clock reach 12. This is defined as "midnight," but the term is deceptive, because there is no noon. "First came darkness, then came the Strangers," we are told in the opening narration. In the beginning, there was no light. John Murdoch, the hero, asks Bumstead, the police detective: "When was the last time you remember doing something during the day?" Bumstead is surprised by the question. "You know something?" Murdoch asks him. "I don't think the sun even exists in this place. I've been up for hours and hours, and the night never ends here."
The narration explains that the Strangers came from another galaxy and collected a group of humans to study them. Their civilization is dying. They seek to find the secret of the human heart, or soul, or whatever it is that falls outside their compass. They create a vast artificial city, which can be fabricated, or "tuned," whenever they want to run another experiment.
We see the tuning taking place. All humans lose consciousness. All machinery stops. Changes are made in the city. Skyscrapers are extruded from the primordial materials of the underworld, architecture is devised, rooms are prepared for their inhabitants, props are set in place. Aided by a human scientist, the Strangers inject memories into the foreheads of their test subjects. When humans awaken, they have no memory of the day before; everything they remember has been injected from a communal memory bank. If a man commits murder one day and then is given a new identity, is he still capable of committing murder? Are men inherently good or evil, or is it a matter of how they think of themselves? The Strangers need to know.
Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) has developed an immunity to the devices of the Strangers. His latest memory injection was incomplete. It was administered by Dr. Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland), a scientist who works for the Strangers but has no love for them. Murdoch wakes in a hotel room with the corpse of a dead woman; the script for the day has made him a serial killer of prostitutes. Schreber warns him he is the subject of an experiment but has proven resistant to it. The Strangers are coming for him, and he must flee.
That sets the story into motion: Murdoch wanders through the city, trying to discover its underlying nature; Detective Bumstead (William Hurt) tries to capture him, but will gradually be won over by Murdoch's questions (he is programmed as a cop, but not a very good one; he keeps complaining, "no one ever listens to me"). Then there is the torch singer, Emma (Jennifer Connelly), who remembers that she is John's wife and loves him, and that they met at Shell Beach. Everyone says they know how to go to Shell Beach. But no one seems able to say exactly where it is.
The Strangers occupy the bodies of human cadavers. Most of them are tall; one is in a child's body but is no child. The alien beings themselves, living inside the corpses, look like spiders made of frightened noodles. They can levitate, they can change the matter of the city at will, they have a hive insect organization, they gather in a subterranean cavern to collectively retune the city. This cavern has visuals reminding us of two Fritz Lang films: the underworld mechanisms in "Metropolis" (1927) and his "M" (1931), with the pale faces of criminals rising row above row into the gloom.
In October, I went through "Dark City" a shot at a time for four days at the Hawaii Film festival, with moviegoers who were as curious as I was. We froze frames, we dissected special effects, we debated the meaning of the film, and our numbers even included a psychiatrist who told us of the original Daniel Schreber, a schizophrenic whose book on his condition influenced Freud and Jung.
Sometimes during the shot-by-shot analysis, we simply froze a frame and regarded it. Some of the street scenes echo paintings by Edward Hopper or Jack Vettriano. This is not only a beautiful film but a generous one, which supplies rich depth and imagination and many more details than are really necessary to tell the story. Small wonder that the name Bumstead appears, perhaps in honor of Henry Bumstead, one of the greatest Hollywood art directors. The world created by the Strangers seems borrowed from 1940s film noir; we see fedoras, cigarettes, neon signs, automats, older cars (and some newer ones -- the world is not consistent). Proyas wrote the screenplay with David S. Goyer and Lem Dobbs; the screenplays Dobbs wrote for "Kafka" and Goyer wrote for "Batman Begins" contain some of the same notes sounded here.
Proyas likes deep-focus compositions. Many interior spaces are long and narrow. Exteriors look down one street to the vanishing point, and then the camera pans to look down another street, equally long. The lighting is low-key and moody. The color scheme depends on blacks, browns, shadows and the pallor of the Strangers; warmer colors exist in human faces, in neon signs and on the billboard for Shell Beach. "I am simply grateful for this shot," I said in Hawaii more than once. "It is as well-done as it can possibly be." Many other great films give you the same feeling -- that their makers were carried far beyond the actual requirements of their work into the passion of creating something wonderful.
I believe more than ever that "Dark City" is one of the great modern films. It preceded "The Matrix" by a year (both films used a few of the same sets in Australia), and on a smaller budget, with special effects that owe as much to imagination as to technology, did what "The Matrix" wanted to do, earlier and with more feeling.
The poignancy of "Dark City" emerges in its love stories. At a crucial point, John Murdoch tells Emma, "Everything you remember, and everything I'm supposed to remember, never really happened." Emma doesn't think that can be true. "I so vividly remember meeting you," she says. "I remember falling in love with you." Yes, she remembers. But this is the first time they have met. "I love you, John," she says. "You can't fake something like that." And Murdoch says, "No, you can't." You can inform someone who they love, and that is what the Strangers have done with their memory injection. But what she feels cannot be injected. That is the part the strangers do not understand. Emma has a small role but it is at the heart of the movie, because she truly knows love; John has still to discover it -- to learn about it from her.
The Strangers are not evil. They simply proceed from alien assumptions. They are not even omnipotent, which is why Murdoch, Bumstead and Schreber have relative freedom to move about the city. At the end, we feel a little sorry for them. They will die surrounded by happy beings whose secrets they could not discover.
Notice an opening shot that approaches the hotel window behind which we meet Murdoch. The window is a circular dome in a rectangular frame. As clearly as possible, it looks like the "face" of Hal 9000 in "2001." Hal was a computer that understood everything, except what it was to be human and have emotions. "Dark City" considers the same theme in a film that creates a completely artificial world in which humans teach themselves to be themselves.
Another Quick Thought
Just a word of advice.
If we are really trying to stop various forms of abortion in this country ...
If we really do believe that human beings are created in the image of God and that we should protect the unborn because they share the same value as the born ...
If this issue is not about politics and political parties and liberal vs. conservative agendas ...
If we really want to change the minds of liberals and particularly liberal Christians into stepping up to the plate to help conservative Christians abolish various forms of abortion ...
Then when a well-known and influential liberal Christian and politician advocates the evil of abortion let us not criticize him for not stepping up sooner.
When liberal believer Jesse Jackson came to the support of Terry Schiavo, many of us applauded because we were quite shocked that the rest of liberal Christendom were keeping silent. I do not remember too many conservatives begin to criticize Jackson for his support of abortion at that moment. No, we welcomed his support because we wanted to save Terry Schiavo's life and wished to have the support of anybody willing to offer it. At the silence of other liberal believers, we welcomed such support from someone we hoped would galvanize the rest of Christendom to the plight of the poor and the weak.
Therefore, when a well-known and influential liberal Christian and politician advocates the evil of abortion let us not criticize him for not stepping up sooner. We need to thank him, praise him and applaud his service towards the plight of the poor and the weak.
If we simply criticize him for not stepping up sooner, we tend to be observed to be more interested in scoring politcal points than advocating the issue.
I thank and applaud President Carter as a brother in Christ and I wish him all the best. I hope he continues to voice his displeasure of abortion and that more liberal believers join him.
Amen.
If we are really trying to stop various forms of abortion in this country ...
If we really do believe that human beings are created in the image of God and that we should protect the unborn because they share the same value as the born ...
If this issue is not about politics and political parties and liberal vs. conservative agendas ...
If we really want to change the minds of liberals and particularly liberal Christians into stepping up to the plate to help conservative Christians abolish various forms of abortion ...
Then when a well-known and influential liberal Christian and politician advocates the evil of abortion let us not criticize him for not stepping up sooner.
When liberal believer Jesse Jackson came to the support of Terry Schiavo, many of us applauded because we were quite shocked that the rest of liberal Christendom were keeping silent. I do not remember too many conservatives begin to criticize Jackson for his support of abortion at that moment. No, we welcomed his support because we wanted to save Terry Schiavo's life and wished to have the support of anybody willing to offer it. At the silence of other liberal believers, we welcomed such support from someone we hoped would galvanize the rest of Christendom to the plight of the poor and the weak.
Therefore, when a well-known and influential liberal Christian and politician advocates the evil of abortion let us not criticize him for not stepping up sooner. We need to thank him, praise him and applaud his service towards the plight of the poor and the weak.
If we simply criticize him for not stepping up sooner, we tend to be observed to be more interested in scoring politcal points than advocating the issue.
I thank and applaud President Carter as a brother in Christ and I wish him all the best. I hope he continues to voice his displeasure of abortion and that more liberal believers join him.
Amen.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Christ the Lord : Out of Egypt

I haven't read it nor bought it. I probably will.
From Publishers Weekly:
"Rice departs from her usual subject matter to pen this curious portrait of a seven-year-old Jesus, who departs Egypt with his family to return home to Nazareth. Rice's painstaking historical research is obvious throughout, whether she's showing the differences among first-century Jewish groups (Pharisees, Essenes and Sadducees all play a part), imagining a Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem or depicting the regular but violent rebellions by Jews chafing under Roman rule. The book succeeds in capturing Jesus' profound Jewishness, with some of the best scenes reflecting his Torah education and immersion in the oral traditions of the Hebrew Bible. As fiction, though, the book's first half is slow going. Since it is told from Jesus' perspective, the childlike language can be simplistic, though as readers persevere they will discover the riches of the sparse prose Rice adopts. The emotional heart of the story—Jesus' gradual discovery of the miraculous birth his parents have never discussed with him—picks up steam as well, as he begins to understand why he can heal the sick and raise the dead. Rice provides a moving afterword, in which she describes her recent return to the Catholic faith and evaluates, often in an amusingly strident fashion, the state of biblical studies today."
Review - Praise for Christ the Lord:
“Riveting. . . . Rice's book is a triumph of tone -- her prose lean, lyrical, vivid -- and character. As he ponders his staggering responsibility, the boy is fully believable -- and yet there's something in his supernatural empathy and blazing intelligence that conveys the wondrousness of a boy like no other. . . . With this novel, she has indeed found a convincing version of him; this is fiction that transcends story and instead qualifies as an act of faith. Joins Nikos Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ and Endo's A Life of Jesus as one of the bolder re-tellings.”
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Good from Bad
We do not normally directly bring political matters to this site. I'd rather much more discuss matters of the faith and great works of literature, philosophy and film. However, when the newest round of Supreme Court speculation reared its head of Monday, I voiced to myself either the shear brilliance or supreme luck of George W Bush. I thought this man is either a Methodist Machiavellian or that God continues to smile upon his annointed. Nevertheless, when I found the following opinion on a politically conservative website and since this opinion so exactly mirrors my own, I decided to take break from routine and ritual and allow my "red-headed step child" out for an airing.
It all could have been a strategy. It wasn’t. But it would have worked as one.
By Matthew J. Franck
I have been thinking about why I am so confident that Samuel Alito will be confirmed comfortably by the Senate, with no filibuster attempt by the Democrats, indeed with a good slice of the Democrats voting for him, and probably after hearings that (alas) break no new ground in candor or "ideological" inquiry. And it occurs to me that the reason is summed up in two words: Harriet Miers.
I mean no disrespect to Ms. Miers, and more importantly, I do not mean to impute a cynically Machiavellian strategy to the president. But if George W. Bush, with or without the willing collusion of Harriet Miers, had planned for things to work out the way they have, they could not have done so more beautifully.
Rewind our recent history just a bit. When John Roberts was first nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on July 19, there were two immediate grounds for objection to him cited by the Left: that he was a man chosen to replace a woman, and that he would presumably move the Court rightward, based on what was known of his record. Roberts's obvious excellence by every measure that matters for service on the Supreme Court quickly made the "man replaces woman" issue go away, as it just seemed silly and petty to nearly everyone but the professional feminists. Within a day or two, all that mattered was the "balance of the Court" issue, and all attention turned to Roberts's judicial "philosophy," and to more specific questions of what he could or should be asked, how much he should be expected to respond, and what point on the continuum between pure speculation and solid certainty about his views would be reached by the end of his hearings. Through August one might have said the temperature of the debate moderated somewhat as the public responded very favorably to Roberts, but it still looked like he could face a tough gantlet to run in the Judiciary Committee.
Then came the death of William Rehnquist on September 3, with Roberts's hearings set to begin two days later. When the president quickly moved his nomination of Roberts from the associate's seat to the center chair of the chief justice, the case for Roberts actually became stronger among those naturally disposed against him, as many concluded that a "swap" of Roberts for Rehnquist would probably have a smaller impact on the future course of the Court's decision-making than if Roberts replaced O'Connor. Suddenly the Roberts hearings, already put off for a week, became a much less high-stakes affair, despite the formally greater importance of confirming a chief justice. Probably Roberts would have been just as cool and competent in any event, but some Democratic senators, on and off the committee, no doubt dialed back their Outrage-o-Meters. The final 78-22 vote on September 29 was a sign of how "safe" many of them felt with Roberts replacing Rehnquist, and the Washington Post's editorial the week before, chastising minority leader Harry Reid for opposing Roberts, had to be a sign of the same feeling in the liberal press.
But in the meantime, the chance for a second go at replacing Justice O'Connor produced a redoubled effort on the left to press for both a female nominee and a more "moderate" one than Roberts. Strangely, liberals could almost have thanked Chief Justice Rehnquist for dying in timely fashion and helping them dodge a bullet. The pressure in particular for the president to name a woman was ratcheted up considerably.
Now imagine if Samuel Alito, not Harriet Miers, had been nominated on October 3. The mere fact of his maleness would have been enough to set off the whirling dervishes of the Left, and his conservative reputation would have completed the escalation of the debate. Alito's many sterling qualities, beginning with his superb intellectual and experiential qualifications, would have been far less a part of the conversation if he had been nominated immediately after the similarly gifted and qualified John Roberts. His evident threat to the "balance" on the Court would have produced serious stirrings of filibuster talk among Democrats, and some Republican senators who had joined the Gang of 14 to forestall filibusters last spring might have been talked into acquiescing in the "extraordinary" character of an Alito nomination in early October, especially as liberal activist groups ginned up the talk of "right-wing robed radicals."
Instead we got Harriet Miers, whose recommendations seemed to be that she was female, known to and close to the president, and otherwise an enigma at best as a future justice of the Court. When her qualifications were rapidly assessed as falling well short of the standard set by Roberts, we were in for 24 days in which intellectual achievement, and the right sort of legal or judicial experience, suddenly looked like the most important things.
In the intra-party debate among Republicans, conservatives all but swore a blood oath that if the president would relent and withdraw the Miers nomination, they would fight like never before for his next nominee (assuming he or she measured up decently by the Roberts yardstick). "Moderate" Republicans like Arlen Specter began to talk about qualifications, and knowledge of constitutional law, as the foremost considerations. Perhaps most importantly, some Democrats, including key figures like Patrick Leahy, sounded some of the same themes, as did some major press outlets.
It's not just the withdrawal of the Miers nomination that benefits Judge Alito, by making his nomination possible. It's the fact that there was a Miers nomination at all that benefits Judge Alito, by making his confirmation a virtual certainty. He benefits from the contrast. He doesn't follow Roberts, whom he resembles in key respects. He follows Miers, than whom he could not be more different. Suddenly his great credentials for this job, which would have been greeted with a shrug on October 3, become the focus of attention on October 31. Politicians of both parties who spent October talking about the importance of constitutional law knowledge, of experience in appellate advocacy and/or judging, and of intellectual achievement, are hardly now in a position to downplay the obvious possession of all those qualities by Samuel Alito.
If I thought that President Bush was deeply cynical, and Harriet Miers a loyal lamb willing to be led to the slaughter in his service, I would suspect that they had a conversation in late September that set this all up. That the president wanted to nominate Sam Alito all along. That he and Harriet Miers were agreed on her lack of fitness for the Supreme Court, and foresaw the events that followed her nomination. That they deliberately created the conditions in which conservatives, moderates, and even many liberals would react to her withdrawal with relief and to the nomination of Judge Alito with gratitude and admiration. That the failed Miers nomination would make "it's gotta be a woman" go away as an issue for nearly everyone, and bring neutral questions of expertise front and center once again. That it would then be almost impossible for the president's opponents to generate the political momentum needed to defeat this nomination to the Court.
I don't think for a moment that these effects were foreseen and planned in the secret councils of the Bush White House. I'm not kidding; I really don't. It is contrary to everything we know about George W. Bush's head and his heart to suppose that he would trifle with the future of the Court, with the feelings of his friend and close adviser, and with the sympathies of his own partisan supporters, in such cavalier fashion.
But this president has shown an uncanny knack for recovering from his own mistakes, and turning defeat into triumph. It looks like he has done it again, this time with a reversal of field that makes his prior error of judgment look like it was made by a different person altogether, but that also turns that mistake to good effect. October turns out not to have been wasted time at all, but a month well spent on a debate that helps the president's new nomination tremendously. Samuel Alito was probably bound for confirmation anyway, but his path has been made measurably smoother by the fracas over Harriet Miers.
— Matthew J. Franck is a professor and chairman of political science at Radford University.
It all could have been a strategy. It wasn’t. But it would have worked as one.
By Matthew J. Franck
I have been thinking about why I am so confident that Samuel Alito will be confirmed comfortably by the Senate, with no filibuster attempt by the Democrats, indeed with a good slice of the Democrats voting for him, and probably after hearings that (alas) break no new ground in candor or "ideological" inquiry. And it occurs to me that the reason is summed up in two words: Harriet Miers.
I mean no disrespect to Ms. Miers, and more importantly, I do not mean to impute a cynically Machiavellian strategy to the president. But if George W. Bush, with or without the willing collusion of Harriet Miers, had planned for things to work out the way they have, they could not have done so more beautifully.
Rewind our recent history just a bit. When John Roberts was first nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on July 19, there were two immediate grounds for objection to him cited by the Left: that he was a man chosen to replace a woman, and that he would presumably move the Court rightward, based on what was known of his record. Roberts's obvious excellence by every measure that matters for service on the Supreme Court quickly made the "man replaces woman" issue go away, as it just seemed silly and petty to nearly everyone but the professional feminists. Within a day or two, all that mattered was the "balance of the Court" issue, and all attention turned to Roberts's judicial "philosophy," and to more specific questions of what he could or should be asked, how much he should be expected to respond, and what point on the continuum between pure speculation and solid certainty about his views would be reached by the end of his hearings. Through August one might have said the temperature of the debate moderated somewhat as the public responded very favorably to Roberts, but it still looked like he could face a tough gantlet to run in the Judiciary Committee.
Then came the death of William Rehnquist on September 3, with Roberts's hearings set to begin two days later. When the president quickly moved his nomination of Roberts from the associate's seat to the center chair of the chief justice, the case for Roberts actually became stronger among those naturally disposed against him, as many concluded that a "swap" of Roberts for Rehnquist would probably have a smaller impact on the future course of the Court's decision-making than if Roberts replaced O'Connor. Suddenly the Roberts hearings, already put off for a week, became a much less high-stakes affair, despite the formally greater importance of confirming a chief justice. Probably Roberts would have been just as cool and competent in any event, but some Democratic senators, on and off the committee, no doubt dialed back their Outrage-o-Meters. The final 78-22 vote on September 29 was a sign of how "safe" many of them felt with Roberts replacing Rehnquist, and the Washington Post's editorial the week before, chastising minority leader Harry Reid for opposing Roberts, had to be a sign of the same feeling in the liberal press.
But in the meantime, the chance for a second go at replacing Justice O'Connor produced a redoubled effort on the left to press for both a female nominee and a more "moderate" one than Roberts. Strangely, liberals could almost have thanked Chief Justice Rehnquist for dying in timely fashion and helping them dodge a bullet. The pressure in particular for the president to name a woman was ratcheted up considerably.
Now imagine if Samuel Alito, not Harriet Miers, had been nominated on October 3. The mere fact of his maleness would have been enough to set off the whirling dervishes of the Left, and his conservative reputation would have completed the escalation of the debate. Alito's many sterling qualities, beginning with his superb intellectual and experiential qualifications, would have been far less a part of the conversation if he had been nominated immediately after the similarly gifted and qualified John Roberts. His evident threat to the "balance" on the Court would have produced serious stirrings of filibuster talk among Democrats, and some Republican senators who had joined the Gang of 14 to forestall filibusters last spring might have been talked into acquiescing in the "extraordinary" character of an Alito nomination in early October, especially as liberal activist groups ginned up the talk of "right-wing robed radicals."
Instead we got Harriet Miers, whose recommendations seemed to be that she was female, known to and close to the president, and otherwise an enigma at best as a future justice of the Court. When her qualifications were rapidly assessed as falling well short of the standard set by Roberts, we were in for 24 days in which intellectual achievement, and the right sort of legal or judicial experience, suddenly looked like the most important things.
In the intra-party debate among Republicans, conservatives all but swore a blood oath that if the president would relent and withdraw the Miers nomination, they would fight like never before for his next nominee (assuming he or she measured up decently by the Roberts yardstick). "Moderate" Republicans like Arlen Specter began to talk about qualifications, and knowledge of constitutional law, as the foremost considerations. Perhaps most importantly, some Democrats, including key figures like Patrick Leahy, sounded some of the same themes, as did some major press outlets.
It's not just the withdrawal of the Miers nomination that benefits Judge Alito, by making his nomination possible. It's the fact that there was a Miers nomination at all that benefits Judge Alito, by making his confirmation a virtual certainty. He benefits from the contrast. He doesn't follow Roberts, whom he resembles in key respects. He follows Miers, than whom he could not be more different. Suddenly his great credentials for this job, which would have been greeted with a shrug on October 3, become the focus of attention on October 31. Politicians of both parties who spent October talking about the importance of constitutional law knowledge, of experience in appellate advocacy and/or judging, and of intellectual achievement, are hardly now in a position to downplay the obvious possession of all those qualities by Samuel Alito.
If I thought that President Bush was deeply cynical, and Harriet Miers a loyal lamb willing to be led to the slaughter in his service, I would suspect that they had a conversation in late September that set this all up. That the president wanted to nominate Sam Alito all along. That he and Harriet Miers were agreed on her lack of fitness for the Supreme Court, and foresaw the events that followed her nomination. That they deliberately created the conditions in which conservatives, moderates, and even many liberals would react to her withdrawal with relief and to the nomination of Judge Alito with gratitude and admiration. That the failed Miers nomination would make "it's gotta be a woman" go away as an issue for nearly everyone, and bring neutral questions of expertise front and center once again. That it would then be almost impossible for the president's opponents to generate the political momentum needed to defeat this nomination to the Court.
I don't think for a moment that these effects were foreseen and planned in the secret councils of the Bush White House. I'm not kidding; I really don't. It is contrary to everything we know about George W. Bush's head and his heart to suppose that he would trifle with the future of the Court, with the feelings of his friend and close adviser, and with the sympathies of his own partisan supporters, in such cavalier fashion.
But this president has shown an uncanny knack for recovering from his own mistakes, and turning defeat into triumph. It looks like he has done it again, this time with a reversal of field that makes his prior error of judgment look like it was made by a different person altogether, but that also turns that mistake to good effect. October turns out not to have been wasted time at all, but a month well spent on a debate that helps the president's new nomination tremendously. Samuel Alito was probably bound for confirmation anyway, but his path has been made measurably smoother by the fracas over Harriet Miers.
— Matthew J. Franck is a professor and chairman of political science at Radford University.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Reformation Day: Trick or Treat?
October 31st is not Halloween but Reformation Day.
This is the day that we celebrate the time in 1517 when a German Augustinian monk, professor and theologian teaching at the University of Wittenberg and preaching at "All Saints" Castle Church (this church was named "All Saints" because it was the repository of his collection of holy relics) decided to question the leaders of the Western Church's understanding of Scripture.
Yes, on "All Saints" Day, a German theologian who fancied the bottle a bit, decided to knock on the door of "All Saints" Church and say, "Trick or treat?"
The Treat was a better understanding of the gospel. The Trick was complete indifference for whether or not the church leadership agreed or disagreed.
For this "All Saints" prank (and "papering" the church door) Luther was labled a "drunk little monk", a "the Saxon Hus" and an arch heretic ... but at least he wasn't labeled a liberal.
So let us honor this occasion in a suitable way, in no particular order:
1) Watch the film, Luther.
2) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
3) Remember all who have come before: Luther, Kierkegaard, Kung, Paul, Jeremiah, Elijah, Moody, Marshall, XXXXX, XXXXX, Stagg, Whitsitt, and Elliott among others.
4) Pray to God.
5) Reflect on all the issues that separate you from other believers.
6) Reflect on all the issues that unite you with other believers.
7) Continue to remind yourself that whether you are in the minority or in the majority, your understanding of Scripture could be wrong.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
How did Methuselah die?
We are all familiar with the name Methuselah. His name is synonymous with old-age. He is known as the longest living man recorded in Scripture, coming in at a whopping 969 years (Genesis 5:27).
Now I am not going to go into the subject of the possibility of someone actually living that long. I am not going into the subject of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures’ understanding of antiquity. That, in antiquity, the Ancient Near Eastern culture’s recorded great men of their antiquity as living hundreds and thousands of year is of no concern here. This article is not about the subject of inerrancy.
Rather, I am concerned with the subject as to how Methuselah died. Most people assume that he died of old-age. I mean, if someone today dies at the age of 96, we assume he died of old age. Now if a person died at the age of 969, then old age is a sure bet. … But is it?
Follow my math here:
Methuselah was 187 when he begat his son Lamech (5:26)
Lamech was 182 when he begat his son Noah (5:28-29).
At the time Lamech was 182 and begetting Noah, Methuselah was 369.
Now Noah was 500 when he begat his sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth (5:32), who we must assume were triplets.
At the time that Noah was 500 and begetting Ham, Shem, and Japheth, Noah’s father, Lamech, was 682 years old. Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah was 869 years old.
Now at the time of the flood, Noah was 600 years old (7:6) and his three sons were each 100.
In verse 5:30, Lamech is said to have lived 595 after the birth of Noah. If he was 182 at the birth of Noah, and lived 595 more years, then Lamech would have died at the age of 777 (5:31), five years before the flood.
Now Methuselah was 869 years of age at the birth of Noah’s three sons when Noah was 500. If the flood came when Noah was 600 and his three sons were 100, the flood would have come when Methuselah was 969. And, as Genesis 5:27 says, Methuselah died at the age of 969.
Therefore, Methuselah outlived his son, Lamech, by five years, and died the same year as the great flood that destroyed all life.
So my question is: HOW DID METHUSELAH DIE? Did he die of natural causes just before the flood or did he die as a result of the flood? The Bible is silent about this.
The Bible does not make any assertions about the faith of Methuselah, either positive or negative or righteous or unrighteous.
The answer to how Methuselah died must remain a mystery for some time.
Now I am not going to go into the subject of the possibility of someone actually living that long. I am not going into the subject of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures’ understanding of antiquity. That, in antiquity, the Ancient Near Eastern culture’s recorded great men of their antiquity as living hundreds and thousands of year is of no concern here. This article is not about the subject of inerrancy.
Rather, I am concerned with the subject as to how Methuselah died. Most people assume that he died of old-age. I mean, if someone today dies at the age of 96, we assume he died of old age. Now if a person died at the age of 969, then old age is a sure bet. … But is it?
Follow my math here:
Methuselah was 187 when he begat his son Lamech (5:26)
Lamech was 182 when he begat his son Noah (5:28-29).
At the time Lamech was 182 and begetting Noah, Methuselah was 369.
Now Noah was 500 when he begat his sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth (5:32), who we must assume were triplets.
At the time that Noah was 500 and begetting Ham, Shem, and Japheth, Noah’s father, Lamech, was 682 years old. Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah was 869 years old.
Now at the time of the flood, Noah was 600 years old (7:6) and his three sons were each 100.
In verse 5:30, Lamech is said to have lived 595 after the birth of Noah. If he was 182 at the birth of Noah, and lived 595 more years, then Lamech would have died at the age of 777 (5:31), five years before the flood.
Now Methuselah was 869 years of age at the birth of Noah’s three sons when Noah was 500. If the flood came when Noah was 600 and his three sons were 100, the flood would have come when Methuselah was 969. And, as Genesis 5:27 says, Methuselah died at the age of 969.
Therefore, Methuselah outlived his son, Lamech, by five years, and died the same year as the great flood that destroyed all life.
So my question is: HOW DID METHUSELAH DIE? Did he die of natural causes just before the flood or did he die as a result of the flood? The Bible is silent about this.
The Bible does not make any assertions about the faith of Methuselah, either positive or negative or righteous or unrighteous.
The answer to how Methuselah died must remain a mystery for some time.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Friday, October 21, 2005
SBFM2005
Here is a brief commentary in the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men [and women] divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God [and man] for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter [depending on what you consider its “matter” to be].
God
There is one and only one living and true God. …The eternal God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes [This is incorrect: The Scriptures nowhere speak of God having three distinct personalities. God is only One person and we know Him by Father, Son and Spirit which are ALL one person. Jesus Christ, the Son, is the full revelation of God in His person. There are not two persons in Father and Son but one person. The Spirit and the Son are the Word and Breath of God the Father. They are breathed out by Him simultaneously. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ. The error in believing God as three persons had developed in the change in language over the centuries. The Latin word, persona, which we get our word “person,” did not mean “personality” with which we now associate the word. God is One personality.], but without division of nature, essence, or being.
God the Father
God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. …God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
God the Son
Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. …He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His death on the cross, He made provision for the redemption of men from sin [Oddly enough, there is nothing in this confession that addresses a particular view of the atonement. While it is generally true that conservative evangelicals hold to the penal substitutionary theory of atonement, there is nothing here that explicitly confesses that belief. This is one of the inclusive features of the 1924 and 1963 BFMs that made it such a wonderful document.].
God the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. …He exalts Christ. He convicts of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. …He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.
Man
Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation [All this is true and does not necessitate the abandonment of the scientific theory of evolution]. …By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race [This is interesting. The use of “man” instead of “Adam” leaves possible the inclusion of a non-Augustine understanding of Original Sin.]. … The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore every man possesses dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.
Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood [not just by his blood (i.e. his death); the atoning work of Christ involved both His life and death.] obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.
God's Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. …All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit will never fall away from the state of grace [This is incorrect: sanctification is an on-going process in the life of the believer. There are believers not eternally elected who are sanctified to some degree but then “fall away” and stop believing.], but shall persevere to the end.
The Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body [not just a local body, as you will see further down; the Church is also understood as the entire body of believers at any point in time. This limited understanding of the church is a remnant of the SBC’s early Landmark influence.] of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel…and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth [The “gospel” is mentioned 3 times in this confession but is never once define. What do Southern Baptists consider the Gospel to be?]. …This church is an autonomous body. …The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ, which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages.
Baptism & the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water [not just immersion]. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.
The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members … memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming [I prefer the term “communion” over the term “Lord’s Supper.” It is during Communion that we remember what Christ did to reconcile us to God. It is during Communion that we remember what Christ did to reconcile us to our neighbor. It is during communion that we remember that Christ will return and we shall be fully reconciled with God and Man in Jesus Christ. During Communion we who are in Christ commune with God in Christ and commune with our neighbors in the Church (the body of Christ) who are in Christ. While such communion with others in Christ is administered on the local level in the local church, the spiritual reality is that we commune with all believers at all times who have ever or will ever be in Christ. This communion anticipates the final state of when Christ returns and all believers will eternally commune with other believers and God in Christ. … Also, Communion should not be restricted to just “members of the local church”; it should be offered to all believers who profess relation to God through Christ. This “member” idea is another remnant of SBC Landmark influence.].
The Lord's Day
The first day of the week is the Lord's Day [Sunday is the traditional “day of rest” Baptists. The Sabbath was instituted by God for man to rest from the weariness of this world. It is an element of God’s grace for those who bear his image. Jesus’ example was that when He wanted to work on the Sabbath He did so. When Jesus wanted to rest and it wasn’t the Sabbath He did so. Jesus often worked on the Sabbath and withdrew to a quiet place to rest when He needed the rest. Leonard Sweet refers to these as “instant Sabbaths.” For those who wish to serve the Church in SBC churches, Sunday is rarely a “day of rest.” We receive our ultimate “rest” both physically and spiritually in God.]. …It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead [and foreshadows and anticipates the ultimate “rest” that we shall receive at the consummation of all things in Christ.] and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion.
Last Things
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. …Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly [and physically] …the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell [“Hell” refers to the place of punishment both temporal and eternal. Temporal punishment is the physical and spiritual conscious punishment for sins against God and Man. Eternal punishment is described in the Scriptures as “destruction” and “the second death.” The unbeliever will be annihilated and punished with non-existence for all eternity.] and …The righteous… will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven [not just heaven, but also Earth] with the Lord.
Evangelism & Missions
It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations … to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by personal effort.
Education
The cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence … there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. …The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists [and not by the shifting wills and beliefs of the school trustees, the school president, the local body of believers and the majority’s consensus].
Stewardship
God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions.
Cooperation
Christ's people should … organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. …Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations [Yes, and if we can cooperate with Roman Catholics on moral goals we can surely cooperate with other Baptists on soteriological goals.].
The Christian & the Social Order
Every Christian is under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in his own life and in human society. ... The Christian should oppose in the spirit of Christ every form of greed, selfishness, and vice [Yes, however, there are both kingdom goals (“the will of Christ”) and kingdom methods (also “the will of Christ”). I take the term “in the Spirit of Christ” as referring to the Christ-like manner in which Christ proclaimed the gospel (i.e. the kingdom of God) in both word and deed. The kingdom of God can only be realized by the methods of the kingdom. No other method is granted by God. Therefore, no matter how good are the intentions of those who pursue the goals of the kingdom of heaven must do so by the methods of the kingdom of heaven or their striving is in vain.].
Religious Liberty
Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. …A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal [this obviously needs further explanation].
Family
God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society [I am somewhat skeptical about this assertion; I do not see such a statement proclaimed in Scripture.]. …Marriage is the unity of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime [Therefore, even if gay couples think they are married they are not God does not recognize their marriage.] …The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image [Good.]. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. …Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.
The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men [and women] divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God [and man] for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter [depending on what you consider its “matter” to be].
God
There is one and only one living and true God. …The eternal God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes [This is incorrect: The Scriptures nowhere speak of God having three distinct personalities. God is only One person and we know Him by Father, Son and Spirit which are ALL one person. Jesus Christ, the Son, is the full revelation of God in His person. There are not two persons in Father and Son but one person. The Spirit and the Son are the Word and Breath of God the Father. They are breathed out by Him simultaneously. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ. The error in believing God as three persons had developed in the change in language over the centuries. The Latin word, persona, which we get our word “person,” did not mean “personality” with which we now associate the word. God is One personality.], but without division of nature, essence, or being.
God the Father
God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. …God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
God the Son
Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. …He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His death on the cross, He made provision for the redemption of men from sin [Oddly enough, there is nothing in this confession that addresses a particular view of the atonement. While it is generally true that conservative evangelicals hold to the penal substitutionary theory of atonement, there is nothing here that explicitly confesses that belief. This is one of the inclusive features of the 1924 and 1963 BFMs that made it such a wonderful document.].
God the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. …He exalts Christ. He convicts of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. …He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.
Man
Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation [All this is true and does not necessitate the abandonment of the scientific theory of evolution]. …By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race [This is interesting. The use of “man” instead of “Adam” leaves possible the inclusion of a non-Augustine understanding of Original Sin.]. … The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore every man possesses dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.
Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood [not just by his blood (i.e. his death); the atoning work of Christ involved both His life and death.] obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.
God's Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. …All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit will never fall away from the state of grace [This is incorrect: sanctification is an on-going process in the life of the believer. There are believers not eternally elected who are sanctified to some degree but then “fall away” and stop believing.], but shall persevere to the end.
The Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body [not just a local body, as you will see further down; the Church is also understood as the entire body of believers at any point in time. This limited understanding of the church is a remnant of the SBC’s early Landmark influence.] of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel…and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth [The “gospel” is mentioned 3 times in this confession but is never once define. What do Southern Baptists consider the Gospel to be?]. …This church is an autonomous body. …The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ, which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages.
Baptism & the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water [not just immersion]. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.
The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members … memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming [I prefer the term “communion” over the term “Lord’s Supper.” It is during Communion that we remember what Christ did to reconcile us to God. It is during Communion that we remember what Christ did to reconcile us to our neighbor. It is during communion that we remember that Christ will return and we shall be fully reconciled with God and Man in Jesus Christ. During Communion we who are in Christ commune with God in Christ and commune with our neighbors in the Church (the body of Christ) who are in Christ. While such communion with others in Christ is administered on the local level in the local church, the spiritual reality is that we commune with all believers at all times who have ever or will ever be in Christ. This communion anticipates the final state of when Christ returns and all believers will eternally commune with other believers and God in Christ. … Also, Communion should not be restricted to just “members of the local church”; it should be offered to all believers who profess relation to God through Christ. This “member” idea is another remnant of SBC Landmark influence.].
The Lord's Day
The first day of the week is the Lord's Day [Sunday is the traditional “day of rest” Baptists. The Sabbath was instituted by God for man to rest from the weariness of this world. It is an element of God’s grace for those who bear his image. Jesus’ example was that when He wanted to work on the Sabbath He did so. When Jesus wanted to rest and it wasn’t the Sabbath He did so. Jesus often worked on the Sabbath and withdrew to a quiet place to rest when He needed the rest. Leonard Sweet refers to these as “instant Sabbaths.” For those who wish to serve the Church in SBC churches, Sunday is rarely a “day of rest.” We receive our ultimate “rest” both physically and spiritually in God.]. …It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead [and foreshadows and anticipates the ultimate “rest” that we shall receive at the consummation of all things in Christ.] and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion.
Last Things
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. …Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly [and physically] …the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell [“Hell” refers to the place of punishment both temporal and eternal. Temporal punishment is the physical and spiritual conscious punishment for sins against God and Man. Eternal punishment is described in the Scriptures as “destruction” and “the second death.” The unbeliever will be annihilated and punished with non-existence for all eternity.] and …The righteous… will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven [not just heaven, but also Earth] with the Lord.
Evangelism & Missions
It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations … to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by personal effort.
Education
The cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence … there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. …The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists [and not by the shifting wills and beliefs of the school trustees, the school president, the local body of believers and the majority’s consensus].
Stewardship
God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions.
Cooperation
Christ's people should … organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. …Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations [Yes, and if we can cooperate with Roman Catholics on moral goals we can surely cooperate with other Baptists on soteriological goals.].
The Christian & the Social Order
Every Christian is under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in his own life and in human society. ... The Christian should oppose in the spirit of Christ every form of greed, selfishness, and vice [Yes, however, there are both kingdom goals (“the will of Christ”) and kingdom methods (also “the will of Christ”). I take the term “in the Spirit of Christ” as referring to the Christ-like manner in which Christ proclaimed the gospel (i.e. the kingdom of God) in both word and deed. The kingdom of God can only be realized by the methods of the kingdom. No other method is granted by God. Therefore, no matter how good are the intentions of those who pursue the goals of the kingdom of heaven must do so by the methods of the kingdom of heaven or their striving is in vain.].
Religious Liberty
Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. …A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal [this obviously needs further explanation].
Family
God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society [I am somewhat skeptical about this assertion; I do not see such a statement proclaimed in Scripture.]. …Marriage is the unity of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime [Therefore, even if gay couples think they are married they are not God does not recognize their marriage.] …The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image [Good.]. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. …Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.
A Quick Thought
Someone asked me recently whether I held to an Old-Earth Creation or a Young-Earth Creation.
I said , “Young-Earth; 4.57 billion years and not older than that.”
I said , “Young-Earth; 4.57 billion years and not older than that.”
Monday, October 17, 2005
Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
The missis and myself had the pleasure of seeing the new film, Wallace and Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.
Now both of us are Wallace and Gromit fans, having enjoyed the three short films, so our standards and anticipation were quite high. Safe to say that neither were disappointed.
This is a wonderful film that deserves repeated viewing. I would suggest that this is probably one of the best films I have seen this year. Yes, better that Brothers Grim, Fever Pitch and Song of Bernadette, but not as good as Spirited Away. Oddly enough, both the top two are “animation”.
I would recommend this film to all. It is a G film for the kids but more than enough jokes to please parents and non-parents alike. Also, there are a few slight innuendo jokes that will pass over kids’ heads but are hilarious none the less.
Here is the Ebert Review for all who are interested.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Evolution, the Gospel, and the Baptist Press
Recently I have been tackling the issue of Evolution and Fundamentalistic Christianity. Actually, I have been wrestling with this issue for years now. Up until recently my focus has been on the belief that evolution and conservative Christianity are incompatible subjects. Since I believe that this is not the case I have sought to change the conservative Christian mindset on this subject. While I am in no way desiring that people should hold to evolution as I do, I do desire that conservative Christians at least allow other Christians to hold the theory of evolution without referring to them as liberal, errantists, or , even worse, unbelievers. This has been my goal.
However, two other aspects of this issue have gained my focus:
First, I am amazed that so many of our conservative leaders and scholars devote so much time to this issue. With all the problems in this world and in this country, it somewhat amazes me that people can spend so much time on this subject. Then again, what am I doing?
Perusing the various conservative leaders’ work on this subject, many of them see evolution as the source (or, at least, excuse) for all of modern life’s problems. Such is not the case but that is what many appear to believe publicly.
However, among the SBC leaders there have been two reasons given that we all should dislike about evolution. The first reason was given during the early days of the fundamentalist movement. Evolution was called a lie because it reduced man’s importance to the level of animal and denied he was made in the image of God. Such was not the case and this argument dropped by the wayside as the old fundamentalists did. However, the resurgence of fundamentalists into the SBC leadership under the dubious issue of biblical inerrancy precipitated a “revival” of the fundamentalist attack on evolution. This time the theory that had gained wide acceptance by the overwhelming majority of believers (including the majority of conservative believers) was being attacked on the basis of being contrary to the Bible, therefore, all who believed in evolution believed the Bible to be erring. Such was not the case but there you are. Now we are seeing a barrage of fundamentalist books and news stories articulating to the public and all the other Bible-believing Christians that evolution is contrary to the revealed Scriptures of the Creator.
The second aspect of this issue that has amazed me is one that has only recently come upon me.
Whenever I discuss this issue with other seminarians who are surprised at my belief in evolution and Biblical inerrancy, they almost always ask how I can agree with a theory that argues that man is not created in God’s image. I usually answer that I do not believe that the theory of evolution does contradict the revealed truth that humans are made in God’s image.
Yes, reasons Christians give for being against evolution are many: inerrancy, “miracle” creation, image of God … okay, the reasons are three. But there is one reason to be against evolution that I never hear from conservative Christians. Yes, I do have one problem with the theory of evolution that it is currently espoused.
In college, I read a book by William Golding called The Inheritors.
In this book, eight Neanderthals encounter another race of beings like themselves, yet strangely different. This new race, Homo sapiens, fascinating in their skills and sophistication, terrifying in their cruelty, sense of guilt, and incipient corruption, spell doom for the more gentle folk whose world they will inherit.
Now the subtle yet subversive point of this book is its title derived from the Bible, Matthew 5:5; this is the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.’
Yes, there is a real problem with the current theory of evolution that argues for “the survival of the fittest”. Now I happen to believe that there is a way around this problem but there is still an idea in our world that the strong inherit the earth. Now I do not necessarily blame Darwin for this belief. The history of humanity (and its pre-history) suggests that this world is run by the aggressive use of force. Darwinism did not event “survival of the fittest”; it merely found a naturalistic basis for it.
Yet, as the Sermon on the Mount illustrates, the kingdom of heaven is not of this world and is based on laws and rules and commandments at antithesis to the rules of this world. The kingdom is based on peace, meekness, patience, joy, love, poverty and such a kingdom comes at a snails pace but lasts for eternity. This world is based on war, brute force, impatience, misery, hate, wealth and such a world comes quick but lasts only a moment. The kingdom of God is totally at odds with this world and this is the good news. The Kingdom of Heaven has come and is coming and was inaugurated by the coming of its king, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ-figure, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Incarnated God-Man, and the kingdom will find its perfection when Jesus returns. The Kingdom of God IS the Gospel. And the fact that the kingdom of heaven was based on meekness and the like was foolishness to the Greek mind and a stumbling block to the Jews. Yet there it is.
And it is still foolishness to this world and much of the Church. It is amazing, ironic and sad that the most famous use of the rules of the Kingdom of God were applied by the Hindus and Muslims of India under Gandhi.
The most famous American example was by Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Jr.
Unfortunately, King appears to have been the last prominent liberal Christian to use the kingdom method. From the 19th century onward (and particularly today), the liberal wing of the American Church is more interested in pushing forward their agenda and the kingdom by means at odds with the kingdom. Very ironic.
And, unfortunately, much of the conservative wing of the American Church has never taken an interest using the kingdom methods. Each time the conservative churches have moved toward the kingdom of God, the fundamentalist wing has taken over and pulled them back. It is interesting that the conservative resurgence leaders used the most worldly of methods to get their way and now are trying, like the liberal churches, to push their vision of the kingdom upon the American culture. And it is failing as well.
Both groups suffer from impatience and the unwillingness to let the “foolish” methods of the kingdom bring the kingdom to this world. Unfortunately, the kingdom can only come by means of the kingdom. All other methods will fail.
Watching the fundamentalist leadership’s efforts of using brute force and overwhelming power to effect change for the kingdom of God is both sad and disheartening. It is painful to see people who are certainly believers and certainly members of the kingdom of God use the most un-gospel-like methods to proclaim the gospel … if, in fact, they do know what the gospel is.
So it does not surprise me at all that most conservatives do not see “survival of the fittest” as a problem with evolution. Most conservatives don’t see “survival of the fittest” as a problem with the gospel! The last 40 years of Southern Baptist History seems to suggest as much.
All of this is to say that I wanted to know how many articles in the chief Southern Baptist Convention news and propaganda outlet, the Baptist Press, mentions the subject of “evolution.” I was under the impression that they mention the subject a lot. It appears that at least once a week some article out of Southern Seminary will be about the evils of evolution. So I researched the past five years of the Baptist Press and found that they only mention evolution in Evolution – 250 articles. So, yeah, about once a week.
...
Then I thought … hmm, how many articles has the Baptist Press mentioned other subjects in the past five years.
For example:
How many articles mention the “gospel”? 4269
How many articles mention Jesus? 6339
How many articles mention Faith? 6008
How many articles mention God? 10851
How many articles mention the Bible? 5215
How many articles mention the Kingdom? 1699
How many articles mention Salvation? 1598
How many articles mention Grace? 1546
How many articles mention Sin? 1264
How many articles mention Evil? 766
So that’s all interesting, but ...
How many articles mention Abortion? 1232
How many articles mention Homosexuality? 885
How many articles mention Poverty? 370
How many articles mention the Supreme Court? 1352
How many articles mention Judge? 1148
How many articles mention the Courts in general - 2220
Interesting where our priorities are located, but …
How many articles mention Republicans? 745
How many articles mention Democrats? 502
Okay, but ...
How many articles mention the Resurgence? 217
How many articles mention Liberal? 791
How many articles mention Conservative? 1386
How many articles mention Moderate? 341
But we are a Christian group standing on the shoulders of giants, so ...
How many articles mention Luther? 223
How many articles mention Calvin? 129
How many articles mention Barth? 8
How many articles mention Augustine? 50
How many articles mention Kierkegaard? 2
How many articles mention Niebuhr? 6
How many articles mention Darwin? 76
Okay, let’s delve a bit deeper ...
How many articles mention Dr. Al Mohler? 709
How many articles mention Dr. XXXXXX? 678
How many articles mention Dr. XXXXXX? 38
How many articles mention Judge Paul Pressler? 61
How many articles mention Bobby Welch? 330
How many articles mention Rick Warren? 384
How many articles mention John Piper? 72
I won’t interpret this data; you can do that on your own. I am just relieved that evolution is not as big an issue as I feared. That’s good news.
However, two other aspects of this issue have gained my focus:
First, I am amazed that so many of our conservative leaders and scholars devote so much time to this issue. With all the problems in this world and in this country, it somewhat amazes me that people can spend so much time on this subject. Then again, what am I doing?
Perusing the various conservative leaders’ work on this subject, many of them see evolution as the source (or, at least, excuse) for all of modern life’s problems. Such is not the case but that is what many appear to believe publicly.
However, among the SBC leaders there have been two reasons given that we all should dislike about evolution. The first reason was given during the early days of the fundamentalist movement. Evolution was called a lie because it reduced man’s importance to the level of animal and denied he was made in the image of God. Such was not the case and this argument dropped by the wayside as the old fundamentalists did. However, the resurgence of fundamentalists into the SBC leadership under the dubious issue of biblical inerrancy precipitated a “revival” of the fundamentalist attack on evolution. This time the theory that had gained wide acceptance by the overwhelming majority of believers (including the majority of conservative believers) was being attacked on the basis of being contrary to the Bible, therefore, all who believed in evolution believed the Bible to be erring. Such was not the case but there you are. Now we are seeing a barrage of fundamentalist books and news stories articulating to the public and all the other Bible-believing Christians that evolution is contrary to the revealed Scriptures of the Creator.
The second aspect of this issue that has amazed me is one that has only recently come upon me.
Whenever I discuss this issue with other seminarians who are surprised at my belief in evolution and Biblical inerrancy, they almost always ask how I can agree with a theory that argues that man is not created in God’s image. I usually answer that I do not believe that the theory of evolution does contradict the revealed truth that humans are made in God’s image.
Yes, reasons Christians give for being against evolution are many: inerrancy, “miracle” creation, image of God … okay, the reasons are three. But there is one reason to be against evolution that I never hear from conservative Christians. Yes, I do have one problem with the theory of evolution that it is currently espoused.
In college, I read a book by William Golding called The Inheritors.
In this book, eight Neanderthals encounter another race of beings like themselves, yet strangely different. This new race, Homo sapiens, fascinating in their skills and sophistication, terrifying in their cruelty, sense of guilt, and incipient corruption, spell doom for the more gentle folk whose world they will inherit.
Now the subtle yet subversive point of this book is its title derived from the Bible, Matthew 5:5; this is the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.’
Yes, there is a real problem with the current theory of evolution that argues for “the survival of the fittest”. Now I happen to believe that there is a way around this problem but there is still an idea in our world that the strong inherit the earth. Now I do not necessarily blame Darwin for this belief. The history of humanity (and its pre-history) suggests that this world is run by the aggressive use of force. Darwinism did not event “survival of the fittest”; it merely found a naturalistic basis for it.
Yet, as the Sermon on the Mount illustrates, the kingdom of heaven is not of this world and is based on laws and rules and commandments at antithesis to the rules of this world. The kingdom is based on peace, meekness, patience, joy, love, poverty and such a kingdom comes at a snails pace but lasts for eternity. This world is based on war, brute force, impatience, misery, hate, wealth and such a world comes quick but lasts only a moment. The kingdom of God is totally at odds with this world and this is the good news. The Kingdom of Heaven has come and is coming and was inaugurated by the coming of its king, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ-figure, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Incarnated God-Man, and the kingdom will find its perfection when Jesus returns. The Kingdom of God IS the Gospel. And the fact that the kingdom of heaven was based on meekness and the like was foolishness to the Greek mind and a stumbling block to the Jews. Yet there it is.
And it is still foolishness to this world and much of the Church. It is amazing, ironic and sad that the most famous use of the rules of the Kingdom of God were applied by the Hindus and Muslims of India under Gandhi.
The most famous American example was by Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Jr.
Unfortunately, King appears to have been the last prominent liberal Christian to use the kingdom method. From the 19th century onward (and particularly today), the liberal wing of the American Church is more interested in pushing forward their agenda and the kingdom by means at odds with the kingdom. Very ironic.
And, unfortunately, much of the conservative wing of the American Church has never taken an interest using the kingdom methods. Each time the conservative churches have moved toward the kingdom of God, the fundamentalist wing has taken over and pulled them back. It is interesting that the conservative resurgence leaders used the most worldly of methods to get their way and now are trying, like the liberal churches, to push their vision of the kingdom upon the American culture. And it is failing as well.
Both groups suffer from impatience and the unwillingness to let the “foolish” methods of the kingdom bring the kingdom to this world. Unfortunately, the kingdom can only come by means of the kingdom. All other methods will fail.
Watching the fundamentalist leadership’s efforts of using brute force and overwhelming power to effect change for the kingdom of God is both sad and disheartening. It is painful to see people who are certainly believers and certainly members of the kingdom of God use the most un-gospel-like methods to proclaim the gospel … if, in fact, they do know what the gospel is.
So it does not surprise me at all that most conservatives do not see “survival of the fittest” as a problem with evolution. Most conservatives don’t see “survival of the fittest” as a problem with the gospel! The last 40 years of Southern Baptist History seems to suggest as much.
All of this is to say that I wanted to know how many articles in the chief Southern Baptist Convention news and propaganda outlet, the Baptist Press, mentions the subject of “evolution.” I was under the impression that they mention the subject a lot. It appears that at least once a week some article out of Southern Seminary will be about the evils of evolution. So I researched the past five years of the Baptist Press and found that they only mention evolution in Evolution – 250 articles. So, yeah, about once a week.
...
Then I thought … hmm, how many articles has the Baptist Press mentioned other subjects in the past five years.
For example:
How many articles mention the “gospel”? 4269
How many articles mention Jesus? 6339
How many articles mention Faith? 6008
How many articles mention God? 10851
How many articles mention the Bible? 5215
How many articles mention the Kingdom? 1699
How many articles mention Salvation? 1598
How many articles mention Grace? 1546
How many articles mention Sin? 1264
How many articles mention Evil? 766
So that’s all interesting, but ...
How many articles mention Abortion? 1232
How many articles mention Homosexuality? 885
How many articles mention Poverty? 370
How many articles mention the Supreme Court? 1352
How many articles mention Judge? 1148
How many articles mention the Courts in general - 2220
Interesting where our priorities are located, but …
How many articles mention Republicans? 745
How many articles mention Democrats? 502
Okay, but ...
How many articles mention the Resurgence? 217
How many articles mention Liberal? 791
How many articles mention Conservative? 1386
How many articles mention Moderate? 341
But we are a Christian group standing on the shoulders of giants, so ...
How many articles mention Luther? 223
How many articles mention Calvin? 129
How many articles mention Barth? 8
How many articles mention Augustine? 50
How many articles mention Kierkegaard? 2
How many articles mention Niebuhr? 6
How many articles mention Darwin? 76
Okay, let’s delve a bit deeper ...
How many articles mention Dr. Al Mohler? 709
How many articles mention Dr. XXXXXX? 678
How many articles mention Dr. XXXXXX? 38
How many articles mention Judge Paul Pressler? 61
How many articles mention Bobby Welch? 330
How many articles mention Rick Warren? 384
How many articles mention John Piper? 72
I won’t interpret this data; you can do that on your own. I am just relieved that evolution is not as big an issue as I feared. That’s good news.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
On The New NEBTS Teaching Policy
To the NEBTS Family and the Korean Students as well:
Here at Northeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in the thriving metropolis of Shelby, NC, we take great pains and liberties to follow the Word of God and the Bible in how we lead our and other people’s lives. To this effect we have been advancing our Kingdom Challenge program to bring the seminary and the surrounding properties more in line with the reactions of the convention and their understanding of the Bible ... which is the correct understanding of the Bible ... this year. Since the Biblical revelation plainly states that the proper gender for leading, teaching, pastoring, and deaconing is the male gender, the seminary, in accordance with the will of its nine trustees, has limited the role of teaching doctrine to men ... to men. Therefore, all NEBTS professors of the feminine gland who are currently teaching doctrinal classes such as theology, biblical studies, hermeneutics, history, spiritual formations, ethics, missiology and German will be asked to resign effective at noon tomorrow or face a heresy hearing at 1pm tomorrow.
For those women professors (or rather that woman professor) who are currently teaching theology and who are currently tenured, special arrangements will be made.
Though many of the three hundred year old songs that we sing in our churches and at chapel contain many doctrinal statements (such a grace, love, and God), our convention leadership hasn’t yet convinced the laity that leading worship is a type of teaching. Since we cannot convince the laity that female music ministers aren't sufficiently unbiblical enough, women will still be graciously allowed to teach men music.
Therefore, from this point on, all tenured women professors teaching theology (that means you, Dr. Mindy McConnell) will have to sing their lessons out to the male students of their class in contralto, mezzo-soprano or soprano. Male students will have to respond in bass, bass-baritone, baritone, tenor or countertenor. No falsetto, because the Bible speaks against homosexuality. And, of course, no recitatives.
Musical accompaniment must be provided by either a piano or organ (old ladies for piano and organ players are preferred); guitars, drums, and tambourines are prohibited. The music must be traditional and not contemporary, or a traditional song set to contemporary music (traditional songs are those written before 1945; comtemporary songs are those written after 1965. All songs written in between are moderate and aren't popular anyway). Male-female duets are prohibited in accordance with Scripture. Those students breaking this commandment will be stoned before chapel the following day. Dancers will get stoned after chapel. Students who are stoned will not be given food to satiate the munchies ... but professor of Christian Ethics Dr. Bugg Dooby will be there to mess with your heads.
Any questions or comments regarding the new policy should be addressed to Dr. Al Cuckold, chairman of the Ethical Conduct Committee. Students wishing to appeal an answer from the Ethical Conduct Committee may do so by asking the Executive Vice President and Provost, Dr. Al Cuckold.
Dr. Al Cuckold
Seminary Presdent
Here at Northeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in the thriving metropolis of Shelby, NC, we take great pains and liberties to follow the Word of God and the Bible in how we lead our and other people’s lives. To this effect we have been advancing our Kingdom Challenge program to bring the seminary and the surrounding properties more in line with the reactions of the convention and their understanding of the Bible ... which is the correct understanding of the Bible ... this year. Since the Biblical revelation plainly states that the proper gender for leading, teaching, pastoring, and deaconing is the male gender, the seminary, in accordance with the will of its nine trustees, has limited the role of teaching doctrine to men ... to men. Therefore, all NEBTS professors of the feminine gland who are currently teaching doctrinal classes such as theology, biblical studies, hermeneutics, history, spiritual formations, ethics, missiology and German will be asked to resign effective at noon tomorrow or face a heresy hearing at 1pm tomorrow.
For those women professors (or rather that woman professor) who are currently teaching theology and who are currently tenured, special arrangements will be made.
Though many of the three hundred year old songs that we sing in our churches and at chapel contain many doctrinal statements (such a grace, love, and God), our convention leadership hasn’t yet convinced the laity that leading worship is a type of teaching. Since we cannot convince the laity that female music ministers aren't sufficiently unbiblical enough, women will still be graciously allowed to teach men music.
Therefore, from this point on, all tenured women professors teaching theology (that means you, Dr. Mindy McConnell) will have to sing their lessons out to the male students of their class in contralto, mezzo-soprano or soprano. Male students will have to respond in bass, bass-baritone, baritone, tenor or countertenor. No falsetto, because the Bible speaks against homosexuality. And, of course, no recitatives.
Musical accompaniment must be provided by either a piano or organ (old ladies for piano and organ players are preferred); guitars, drums, and tambourines are prohibited. The music must be traditional and not contemporary, or a traditional song set to contemporary music (traditional songs are those written before 1945; comtemporary songs are those written after 1965. All songs written in between are moderate and aren't popular anyway). Male-female duets are prohibited in accordance with Scripture. Those students breaking this commandment will be stoned before chapel the following day. Dancers will get stoned after chapel. Students who are stoned will not be given food to satiate the munchies ... but professor of Christian Ethics Dr. Bugg Dooby will be there to mess with your heads.
Any questions or comments regarding the new policy should be addressed to Dr. Al Cuckold, chairman of the Ethical Conduct Committee. Students wishing to appeal an answer from the Ethical Conduct Committee may do so by asking the Executive Vice President and Provost, Dr. Al Cuckold.
Dr. Al Cuckold
Seminary Presdent
Monday, October 10, 2005
FIRST-PERSON: A creationist watches ‘Bugs Bunny’
In honor of Columbus Day ...
Oct 3, 2005
By Ronald Morris
SHELBY, NC. (BP)--There are many tensions between so-called "flat earth creationists" and "round earth creationists," those who believe the earth is flat and those who accept contemporary theory of the earth as round.
For a long time, I believed that Scripture was silent on the question of the shape of the earth. After all, the Hebrew word for “corners” or “quarters”: kanaph, kaw-nawf' means “an edge or extremity” (“the edge of a wing, of a garment or bed-clothing, a flap, of the earth, a quarter, uttermost part, wing”, for example). The Greek word for “corners”: gonia, means, “an angle, corner, quarter”. In recent months, however, as I have been teaching through the Ancient Near Eastern cosmology of the Bible and working on a lengthy article on general revelation, I have slowly changed my mind. The main issue for me is not the exegetical arguments for the use of the word "corner" (although there are some compelling evidences there for a flat, four-cornered earth in the Bible).
[Here are other scriptures of the Bible that indicate a flat earth with ends, edges, 2 verses that say the earth is a flat 2-dimensional circle (like a coin), that the earth is immovable, set on pillars or foundations. (Dan 4:10-11, Isa 40:22, Prov 8:26-28, Mat 4:8, Job 38:13, Job 11:9, Deu 13:7, Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8, Acts 1:8, Acts 13:47)]
I think, however, what convinced me that the earth is much flatter than we've been told was watching a Looney Tunes starring Bugs Bunny called Hare We Go. In this cartoon short, Bugs Bunny, as mascot, accompanies Christopher Columbus and his crew as they sail the ocean blue to America in 1492, but Columbus gets all the credit for discovering the continent. Specifically, the problem for Christian theology is the part where Christopher Columbus insists that the world is as round as his head. The King replies by hitting Christopher Columbus on the head with a mallet, saying, "It (the world) is flat like your head.” Bugs demonstrates the planet's roundness by tossing a baseball, which comes back from the other direction, covered with travel stickers. You may laugh at the cartoonish gag involved, but, if we are to believe the unquestioned assertions of modern myths of atheistic “science”, then, theoretically, if one could throw a baseball far enough at the correct gravitational position, then such a baseball could indeed be tossed in one direction and be caught from the other. This is the logical conclusion of the belief that the earth is round. Yet such an idea is foreign to our God-given awareness of creation. Flying baseballs with covered travel stickers?! Is this the earth God created and declared good?
Due to recent and rapidly expanding discoveries in physics, astronomy, geology, topography, and other major disciplines, hundreds of scientists are leaving the “round-earth” reservation. No longer able to adhere to an untenable theory with inexplicable gaffes and holes big enough to fly the Challenger space shuttle through, these scientists are conceding the point that the only plausible explanation for an intricately designed universe is a flat earth. It should be noted that many of these converts to flat-earth thought are not Christians or even religious; they are simply scientists who feel they can no longer deny and suppress the incontrovertible scientific evidence.
For several decades diehard “round earth” scientists have enjoyed the censorship of all their critics in America’s public education. Nothing but the spherical theory of the earth has been allowed into public school classrooms. All other explanations for the shape of the earth have been banned under the presumption of unconstitutionality - as if our Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching anything but the cockamamie theory of a round earth. Instead of questioning established assertions and seeking evidence to the contrary, which has always been the nature or true science, the science propagated in today’s public schools demands students’ blind allegiance to present and popular hypotheses. It does not teach students to be inquisitive but inflexible; it does not teach students how to think but what to think.
In a desperate attempt to protect their monopoly on public education and to discredit the growing chorus of dissenting voices among distinguished scientists, liberals are trying to frame the growing debate over the “spherical earth” and the “flat earth” as a debate between enlightened intellectuals and unintelligent religious fanatics. By doing so, they hope to fool the public into believing that only the obtuse object to the harebrained “round earth” theory.
Why, one wonders, are so many today so determined to keep all evidence of the Bible’s validity out of the public school classroom? Is it, as they portend, to protect the purity of scholasticism? Or is it something most sinister, such as “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18)? According to the Apostle Paul, men’s denial of the truth of God and His creation is not only inexcusable (Romans 1:19-20) and idiotic (Romans 1:21-22), but indicative of “a reprobate mind” (Romans 1:23-32). Thus, contrary to popular opinion, it is not smarts but sin that is behind the expulsion of the flat earth from our public school classrooms.
I find the primary texts for understanding the shape of the world are Isaiah 11:12: “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.” Revelation 7:1: “And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.” Job 38:13: “That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?” Jeremiah 16:19: “O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.” Daniel 4:11: “The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:”
Saint Augustine (354–430) questioned the existence of a spherical earth, arguing against the idea of people inhabiting the other side of the earth and called them a "fable" (De Civitate Dei, xvi, 9).
Those who affirm [a belief in antipodes] do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the Earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men.
Since these people would have to be descended from Adam, they would have had to travel to the other side of the Earth at some point, which is a universally absurd proposition; Augustine continues:
it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.
In the current era, Samuel Shenton of the International Flat Earth Society has studied much of the so-called “evidence” that has come in the wake of the advent of the space program. Following careful research into supposed NASA photographs of earth from deep space, Shenton concluded: "It's easy to see how photographs like these could fool the untrained eye".
And yet, if Christians are ever to provide a "counter-theory" to the Pythagorean astronomy myth and the heliocentric model of Copernicus, we must account for a world that certainly does seem spherical, not only in terms of the obvious mathematics, but also in terms of (often even more suspect than mathematics) human experience.
I am more and more convinced that flat earth theory answers these questions in a way that is faithful to Scripture, the historic confessions of the Christian church throughout the ages, and to the longings of the human heart for a God who created a world he declared "four-cornered."
This doesn't mean we have a ready-made scientific answer for every possible objection to a four-cornered understanding of the earth, sitting on pillars, with the domed-firmament of the cosmos above. Sometimes we must recognize that we are not at the point where we can know exactly how the shifting standards of science fit with divine revelation.
More important is the fact that we have an account of creation that answers the most basic questions of all human beings, an account that resonates with our human experience of both dignity and grandeur.
Christians should recognize that to us has been revealed the "mystery" of the purpose of creation (Eph 1:9-10). We know that the Wisdom that ordered the cosmos, the Word that called the stars together, is a Person -- our King Jesus. We should recognize that the ends of the earth have been created as an inheritance for Jesus (Psalm 2:8). He has been appointed "the heir of all things, through whom He also created the world" (Hebrews 1:2).
It should boggle our minds when we look at the far-off images from the Hubble telescope to recognize that these stars – hundreds of miles beyond our reach - have been formed for Jesus and will be reconciled by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:19-20). This means we should learn to interpret all of reality in terms of how it fits with God's overall purpose to "sum up all things in Christ" (Ephesians 1:10). As the believing community, we have the interpretive grid for this -- the Scriptures and the Spirit whereby we share "the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16). In so doing, let's remember to train up our children to recognize the “spherical earth” theory for what it is. But let's also remember to never be ashamed of what Scripture tells us -- that long ago in an ancient land a king and a queen stood on a six-day old, flat earth, and God called it "good." That might not fit with your local high school's geology textbook. But it makes better sense than Bugs Bunny.
--30--
Ronald Morris is dean of the School of Cosmology and senior vice president for academic administration at Northeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Oct 3, 2005
By Ronald Morris
SHELBY, NC. (BP)--There are many tensions between so-called "flat earth creationists" and "round earth creationists," those who believe the earth is flat and those who accept contemporary theory of the earth as round.
For a long time, I believed that Scripture was silent on the question of the shape of the earth. After all, the Hebrew word for “corners” or “quarters”: kanaph, kaw-nawf' means “an edge or extremity” (“the edge of a wing, of a garment or bed-clothing, a flap, of the earth, a quarter, uttermost part, wing”, for example). The Greek word for “corners”: gonia, means, “an angle, corner, quarter”. In recent months, however, as I have been teaching through the Ancient Near Eastern cosmology of the Bible and working on a lengthy article on general revelation, I have slowly changed my mind. The main issue for me is not the exegetical arguments for the use of the word "corner" (although there are some compelling evidences there for a flat, four-cornered earth in the Bible).
[Here are other scriptures of the Bible that indicate a flat earth with ends, edges, 2 verses that say the earth is a flat 2-dimensional circle (like a coin), that the earth is immovable, set on pillars or foundations. (Dan 4:10-11, Isa 40:22, Prov 8:26-28, Mat 4:8, Job 38:13, Job 11:9, Deu 13:7, Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8, Acts 1:8, Acts 13:47)]
I think, however, what convinced me that the earth is much flatter than we've been told was watching a Looney Tunes starring Bugs Bunny called Hare We Go. In this cartoon short, Bugs Bunny, as mascot, accompanies Christopher Columbus and his crew as they sail the ocean blue to America in 1492, but Columbus gets all the credit for discovering the continent. Specifically, the problem for Christian theology is the part where Christopher Columbus insists that the world is as round as his head. The King replies by hitting Christopher Columbus on the head with a mallet, saying, "It (the world) is flat like your head.” Bugs demonstrates the planet's roundness by tossing a baseball, which comes back from the other direction, covered with travel stickers. You may laugh at the cartoonish gag involved, but, if we are to believe the unquestioned assertions of modern myths of atheistic “science”, then, theoretically, if one could throw a baseball far enough at the correct gravitational position, then such a baseball could indeed be tossed in one direction and be caught from the other. This is the logical conclusion of the belief that the earth is round. Yet such an idea is foreign to our God-given awareness of creation. Flying baseballs with covered travel stickers?! Is this the earth God created and declared good?
Due to recent and rapidly expanding discoveries in physics, astronomy, geology, topography, and other major disciplines, hundreds of scientists are leaving the “round-earth” reservation. No longer able to adhere to an untenable theory with inexplicable gaffes and holes big enough to fly the Challenger space shuttle through, these scientists are conceding the point that the only plausible explanation for an intricately designed universe is a flat earth. It should be noted that many of these converts to flat-earth thought are not Christians or even religious; they are simply scientists who feel they can no longer deny and suppress the incontrovertible scientific evidence.
For several decades diehard “round earth” scientists have enjoyed the censorship of all their critics in America’s public education. Nothing but the spherical theory of the earth has been allowed into public school classrooms. All other explanations for the shape of the earth have been banned under the presumption of unconstitutionality - as if our Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching anything but the cockamamie theory of a round earth. Instead of questioning established assertions and seeking evidence to the contrary, which has always been the nature or true science, the science propagated in today’s public schools demands students’ blind allegiance to present and popular hypotheses. It does not teach students to be inquisitive but inflexible; it does not teach students how to think but what to think.
In a desperate attempt to protect their monopoly on public education and to discredit the growing chorus of dissenting voices among distinguished scientists, liberals are trying to frame the growing debate over the “spherical earth” and the “flat earth” as a debate between enlightened intellectuals and unintelligent religious fanatics. By doing so, they hope to fool the public into believing that only the obtuse object to the harebrained “round earth” theory.
Why, one wonders, are so many today so determined to keep all evidence of the Bible’s validity out of the public school classroom? Is it, as they portend, to protect the purity of scholasticism? Or is it something most sinister, such as “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18)? According to the Apostle Paul, men’s denial of the truth of God and His creation is not only inexcusable (Romans 1:19-20) and idiotic (Romans 1:21-22), but indicative of “a reprobate mind” (Romans 1:23-32). Thus, contrary to popular opinion, it is not smarts but sin that is behind the expulsion of the flat earth from our public school classrooms.
I find the primary texts for understanding the shape of the world are Isaiah 11:12: “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.” Revelation 7:1: “And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.” Job 38:13: “That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?” Jeremiah 16:19: “O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.” Daniel 4:11: “The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:”
Saint Augustine (354–430) questioned the existence of a spherical earth, arguing against the idea of people inhabiting the other side of the earth and called them a "fable" (De Civitate Dei, xvi, 9).
Those who affirm [a belief in antipodes] do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the Earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men.
Since these people would have to be descended from Adam, they would have had to travel to the other side of the Earth at some point, which is a universally absurd proposition; Augustine continues:
it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.
In the current era, Samuel Shenton of the International Flat Earth Society has studied much of the so-called “evidence” that has come in the wake of the advent of the space program. Following careful research into supposed NASA photographs of earth from deep space, Shenton concluded: "It's easy to see how photographs like these could fool the untrained eye".
And yet, if Christians are ever to provide a "counter-theory" to the Pythagorean astronomy myth and the heliocentric model of Copernicus, we must account for a world that certainly does seem spherical, not only in terms of the obvious mathematics, but also in terms of (often even more suspect than mathematics) human experience.
I am more and more convinced that flat earth theory answers these questions in a way that is faithful to Scripture, the historic confessions of the Christian church throughout the ages, and to the longings of the human heart for a God who created a world he declared "four-cornered."
This doesn't mean we have a ready-made scientific answer for every possible objection to a four-cornered understanding of the earth, sitting on pillars, with the domed-firmament of the cosmos above. Sometimes we must recognize that we are not at the point where we can know exactly how the shifting standards of science fit with divine revelation.
More important is the fact that we have an account of creation that answers the most basic questions of all human beings, an account that resonates with our human experience of both dignity and grandeur.
Christians should recognize that to us has been revealed the "mystery" of the purpose of creation (Eph 1:9-10). We know that the Wisdom that ordered the cosmos, the Word that called the stars together, is a Person -- our King Jesus. We should recognize that the ends of the earth have been created as an inheritance for Jesus (Psalm 2:8). He has been appointed "the heir of all things, through whom He also created the world" (Hebrews 1:2).
It should boggle our minds when we look at the far-off images from the Hubble telescope to recognize that these stars – hundreds of miles beyond our reach - have been formed for Jesus and will be reconciled by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:19-20). This means we should learn to interpret all of reality in terms of how it fits with God's overall purpose to "sum up all things in Christ" (Ephesians 1:10). As the believing community, we have the interpretive grid for this -- the Scriptures and the Spirit whereby we share "the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16). In so doing, let's remember to train up our children to recognize the “spherical earth” theory for what it is. But let's also remember to never be ashamed of what Scripture tells us -- that long ago in an ancient land a king and a queen stood on a six-day old, flat earth, and God called it "good." That might not fit with your local high school's geology textbook. But it makes better sense than Bugs Bunny.
--30--
Ronald Morris is dean of the School of Cosmology and senior vice president for academic administration at Northeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
The Arky-Arky Song
Hello, boys and girls. This is your old pal Dr. Plenty Pentecostal.
This is a song about Aimee Semple McPherson - No! This is a song about Noah!
That's right: it's the "Arky-Arky Song".
God said to Noah, "Go build and arky-arky.
Fill it with animals: the ones that go 'Moo!', 'Barky-barky!'
It's gonna rain and get pretty darky-darky"
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
I don't think your charismatic enough.
That's right: I'll teach you to be charismatic.
...
I'LL TEACH ROBERT SCHULLER TO SUCK EGGS!!!
Now, boys and girls; let's try it again.
God said to Noah, "Bring'em in by twosie-twosie."
Noah to God said, "But I'm just a Jewsy-Jewsy."
God said to Noah, "I'm not to choosey-choosey."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
If you ain't the granddaddy of the Four-Square Gospel!
Mmm, the people of the Southern Baptist Convention ... they don't know that their liberal ...
That's very funny ... salvation without baptismal regeneration ...
I TOLD YOU I'D SHOOT! BUT YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE ME! WHY DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE ME!
God said to Noah, "It's 'bout to get funky-funky.
Tie down the animals, especially the monkey-monkeys.
It's gonna rain and kill all the honky-honkys."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
This is a song about Aimee Semple McPherson - No! This is a song about Noah!
That's right: it's the "Arky-Arky Song".
God said to Noah, "Go build and arky-arky.
Fill it with animals: the ones that go 'Moo!', 'Barky-barky!'
It's gonna rain and get pretty darky-darky"
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
I don't think your charismatic enough.
That's right: I'll teach you to be charismatic.
...
I'LL TEACH ROBERT SCHULLER TO SUCK EGGS!!!
Now, boys and girls; let's try it again.
God said to Noah, "Bring'em in by twosie-twosie."
Noah to God said, "But I'm just a Jewsy-Jewsy."
God said to Noah, "I'm not to choosey-choosey."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
If you ain't the granddaddy of the Four-Square Gospel!
Mmm, the people of the Southern Baptist Convention ... they don't know that their liberal ...
That's very funny ... salvation without baptismal regeneration ...
I TOLD YOU I'D SHOOT! BUT YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE ME! WHY DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE ME!
God said to Noah, "It's 'bout to get funky-funky.
Tie down the animals, especially the monkey-monkeys.
It's gonna rain and kill all the honky-honkys."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Cry Happiness released
Boston-based rock band, Miles From Land has released their first album, Cry Happiness. Who are Miles From Land?
"we are from the backyard. the corner where the rocketship stands. we grew up listening to science. love. math. action. squint tightly. the flashes are really sounds. this is just a smokescreen. an oilslick. a diversion to keep you occupied."
I have the privilege of being friends with one the band members for almost a decade now. I am going to purchase my copy this week.
WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
As I have mentioned previously, I am on a quest to find a more effective means of evangelizing. The source of this venture stems from my focus on the current evangelical crisis that has been affecting the Southern Baptist Convention. This search for a solution to the evangelical crisis is the logical outcome of my criticism (both positive and negative) of that institution and the evangelical wing of the American Church as a whole. If one is going to criticize a movement or institution, it is always good to offer or suggest solutions to the problem that is being analyzed. Unfortunately, the solution to a problem is usually a more difficult beast to tame while pointing out a problem is simply capturing the animal (this is why Clyde Beatty was greater than Frank Buck).
The process of my exploration into the solutions for the evangelical crisis have taken many avenues: history, theology, philosophy, politics, and, of course, Scripture, to name just a few. I’ve also been reading many books about evangelism and ascertaining from various evangelism professors and evangelists about their views on the subject. I’ve also been testing my theories about evangelistic methods both in theory and in practice. By this I mean that I have begun to explain some of my findings on the subject to various people more active in evangelism than myself and, also, suggesting these methods of evangelism to various individuals for real like practice. The response I have received in theory has been quite positive. Most individuals have agreed with much of my findings in either theory or in experience or both. Still, the ultimate test of my theories will be with positive evangelistic results, i.e., conversions: the proof is in the pudding.
Now during the progression of my research and thought, I have frequently encountered the phrase “preach the gospel”. Every time I read or hear and evangelist, professor, author, or denomination or seminary leader speak about the issue of evangelism or the Great Commission (i.e., our purpose as believers of this age), I always hear that we are supposed to “preach the gospel.” Well, the meaning of “evangelism” is to “preach the gospel (or the good news)”. As evangelicals we are to “proclaim the good news”.
…
The odd thing about this notion in our day is that most people do not seem to have any idea of what the “gospel” is. And I am not just talking about the everyday churchgoer; I’m talking about seminary students, pastors, church leaders, professors and even evangelists. And I will throw myself in on this pile. I had some second thoughts about my understanding of what the gospel is. I mean, if we are charged to go out and proclaim the gospel, it behooves us to know what it is. Therefore, I began to research the Bible and my various secondary theological books and ascertained what the gospel actually is … and it surprised me. It surprised me because my prior conception of the gospel was very limited; I had only recognized part of the gospel message and, therefore, my thinking along these lines was only partial.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that all of the New Testament writers have a different take on the gospel. Each writer emphasizes a particular part of the gospel which is somewhat different from the other writers. None of these aspects of the gospel is contradictory to the other but rarely are they complete. Some are more general while others are more specific. What occurs is that we believers latch on to one author’s emphasis (for whatever reason) and take it as our own and reject all others.
The other part of the problem stems from the first: we are not educating our brothers and sisters in Christ as to what the gospel actually is. I think that if we did educate them about the complete extent of the gospel then we might alleviate many of our current church problems (including our evangelistic problems, though I do not think that this knowledge in itself would solve the current evangelical crisis. While the content of our message is undoubtedly important and plays a significant factor, the context of our methods is my primary focus in researching this issue).
When I understood what the gospel actually was, much of the rest of the New Testament began to fall into place. In fact, much of the Old Testament began to fall into place. Yes, I did indeed move again a tad bit to the left. Perhaps that is one reason we do not emphasize other aspects of the gospel. Who knows!
Now I suppose you are all wondering what my new found understanding of the gospel is. Well, I am not going to tell you; I want you to tell me.
I want you to tell me in toto, WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
I really want believers to think about this. I really want believers to go back to the Scriptures. It appears that we are mostly ignorant on this pivotal issue and no one appears to think it necessary for us to know.
So, if you know, please comment.
The process of my exploration into the solutions for the evangelical crisis have taken many avenues: history, theology, philosophy, politics, and, of course, Scripture, to name just a few. I’ve also been reading many books about evangelism and ascertaining from various evangelism professors and evangelists about their views on the subject. I’ve also been testing my theories about evangelistic methods both in theory and in practice. By this I mean that I have begun to explain some of my findings on the subject to various people more active in evangelism than myself and, also, suggesting these methods of evangelism to various individuals for real like practice. The response I have received in theory has been quite positive. Most individuals have agreed with much of my findings in either theory or in experience or both. Still, the ultimate test of my theories will be with positive evangelistic results, i.e., conversions: the proof is in the pudding.
Now during the progression of my research and thought, I have frequently encountered the phrase “preach the gospel”. Every time I read or hear and evangelist, professor, author, or denomination or seminary leader speak about the issue of evangelism or the Great Commission (i.e., our purpose as believers of this age), I always hear that we are supposed to “preach the gospel.” Well, the meaning of “evangelism” is to “preach the gospel (or the good news)”. As evangelicals we are to “proclaim the good news”.
…
The odd thing about this notion in our day is that most people do not seem to have any idea of what the “gospel” is. And I am not just talking about the everyday churchgoer; I’m talking about seminary students, pastors, church leaders, professors and even evangelists. And I will throw myself in on this pile. I had some second thoughts about my understanding of what the gospel is. I mean, if we are charged to go out and proclaim the gospel, it behooves us to know what it is. Therefore, I began to research the Bible and my various secondary theological books and ascertained what the gospel actually is … and it surprised me. It surprised me because my prior conception of the gospel was very limited; I had only recognized part of the gospel message and, therefore, my thinking along these lines was only partial.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that all of the New Testament writers have a different take on the gospel. Each writer emphasizes a particular part of the gospel which is somewhat different from the other writers. None of these aspects of the gospel is contradictory to the other but rarely are they complete. Some are more general while others are more specific. What occurs is that we believers latch on to one author’s emphasis (for whatever reason) and take it as our own and reject all others.
The other part of the problem stems from the first: we are not educating our brothers and sisters in Christ as to what the gospel actually is. I think that if we did educate them about the complete extent of the gospel then we might alleviate many of our current church problems (including our evangelistic problems, though I do not think that this knowledge in itself would solve the current evangelical crisis. While the content of our message is undoubtedly important and plays a significant factor, the context of our methods is my primary focus in researching this issue).
When I understood what the gospel actually was, much of the rest of the New Testament began to fall into place. In fact, much of the Old Testament began to fall into place. Yes, I did indeed move again a tad bit to the left. Perhaps that is one reason we do not emphasize other aspects of the gospel. Who knows!
Now I suppose you are all wondering what my new found understanding of the gospel is. Well, I am not going to tell you; I want you to tell me.
I want you to tell me in toto, WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
I really want believers to think about this. I really want believers to go back to the Scriptures. It appears that we are mostly ignorant on this pivotal issue and no one appears to think it necessary for us to know.
So, if you know, please comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August

