"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
[I'm a bit busy at the moment and unable take the couple of minutes necessary to refute the silly arguments of Dr. Mohler's gross ignorance of the Scriptures and evolutionary theory. Not that Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, does much better defending his position. But I have argued the point elsewhere. You can find my many articles on the subject below under "Evolution".]
By Bob Allen
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- According to the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, evolution and Christianity are not compatible.
"The theory of evolution is incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures," Albert Mohler, head of the Louisville, Ky., school, wrote in his blog.
Mohler's Aug. 25 blog posting was an open letter in response to an Aug. 21 Huffington Post article that accused him of making false statements about Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who originated the concept of natural selection to explain the diversity of life.
Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group formed to promote harmony between science and faith, reacted in the Huffington Post to comments critical of Darwin by Mohler delivered June 19 at an annual conference of Ligonier Ministries, founded by Calvinist theologian and pastor R.C. Sproul.
Giberson first questioned Mohler's critique of Darwin in an open letter July 6 on the BioLogos website. After waiting two months for a response, Giberson concluded in the Huffington Post article that Mohler "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose."
In his June speech, Mohler argued for the "exegetical and theological necessity" of affirming the universe is no more than several thousand years old and was created in six 24-hour days as recorded in Genesis.
Mohler said Bible passages like Romans 8 attribute death, pain and disaster to the fall of Adam as recorded in Genesis 3.
"We end up with enormous problems if we try to interpret a historical fall and understand a historical fall in an old-Earth rendering," Mohler said, referring to the school of interpretation that views a metaphorical reading of the creation passages in Genesis as compatible with both Christianity and evolutionary science. "This is most clear when it comes to Adam's sin."
"Was it true that, as Paul argues, when sin came, death came?" Mohler asked. "Well just keep in mind that if the Earth is indeed old, and we infer that it is old because of the scientific data, the scientific data is also there to claim that long before the emergence of Adam -- if indeed there is the recognition of a historical Adam -- and certainly long before there was the possibility of Adam's sin, there were all the effects of sin that are biblically attributed to the fall and not to anything before the fall. And we're not only talking about death, we're talking about death by the millions and billions."
Giberson, author of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, objected primarily in the Huffington Post article to Mohler's suggestion that evolution was "invented" to prop up Darwin's worldview rather than to explain observations in the natural world. He called it a "common misrepresentation" that evangelicals use to discredit evolution.
In his earlier blog post, however, Giberson questioned other statements in Mohler's address. They included: "We need to recognize that disaster ensues when the book of nature or general revelation is used in some way to trump Scripture and special revelation."
"I am taking you to mean that we should not let information from outside the Bible change our minds about what is inside the Bible," Giberson wrote.
"The example in your talk would suggest that information from geological records, radioactive dating, cosmic expansion and so on -- all of which suggests that the universe is billions of years old -- should not persuade us to set aside the natural reading of Genesis which suggests that the Earth is young," he wrote. "Is this a fair statement of your position?"
Giberson observed that the "natural reading" of Psalm 93 is that the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved. "Indeed this was thrown at Galileo and got him in trouble for proposing an 'unbiblical' astronomy."
He said "natural" readings of other Bible passages also suggest that slavery is OK and the moon is a light-creating body similar to the sun and "not just a big rock."
"Is there not a long list of examples where general revelation has forced us to set aside special revelation?" Giberson asked in his open letter to Mohler.
Mohler conceded in his blog to one statement that "appears to misrepresent to some degree Darwin's intellectual shifts before and during his experience on the Beagle" but otherwise proclaimed that "I stand by my address in full." He said he plans to address some of the issues raised by Giberson in the coming months.
"If your intention in Saving Darwin is to show 'how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,' what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution," Mohler admonished Giberson.
"In doing this, you and your colleagues at BioLogos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions."
Showing posts with label Fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundamentalism. Show all posts
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Jesus' Favourite Books and Music
Do you know what Jesus’ favorite books of the Bible were? If we base our assumptions on the Gospel accounts, Jesus frequently quoted Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Daniel and Psalms - particularly the Psalms!
He and the disciples sang a few psalms before leaving the Last Supper (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26) to go to the Gethsemane gardens. Even when he was receiving the standard Roman welcome on Golgotha, he was thinking of a psalm (Matt 27:46; Matt 15:34; cf. Psalm 22:1).
Yes, Jesus liked music. Probably due to the influence of Mary - she wrote psalms!Luke 1:46-55. She was just forbidden to explain them!
He and the disciples sang a few psalms before leaving the Last Supper (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26) to go to the Gethsemane gardens. Even when he was receiving the standard Roman welcome on Golgotha, he was thinking of a psalm (Matt 27:46; Matt 15:34; cf. Psalm 22:1).
Yes, Jesus liked music. Probably due to the influence of Mary - she wrote psalms!Luke 1:46-55. She was just forbidden to explain them!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
PC Answers Questions to a Doctoral Student on Evolution and Religion
Last year a doctoral student at a university in Tennessee discovered my blog and a few discussions on Baptist online forums of which I had taken parting 2003. The student was researching the issue of evolution and religion for his dissertation, and I am apparently one of only a handful of evangelical Baptists that accepts the theory of biological evolution. Doesn’t speak well to the validity of my position, does it?
Nevertheless, the student sent me a few questions whose answers I shall now post.
First, are you currently a Baptist pastor?
No. I am a Baptist looking for a ministry in which to pastor.
I’ve pastored in churches in Texas and North Carolina.
I’m a son of a Baptist pastor and a grandson of Baptist missionaries.
Oddly enough, while I have been looking for ministry work in Southern Baptist churches, my wife and I have been attending a Methodist church here in Ohio, partly because it is like a Southern Baptist church we enjoyed in Texas.
And just this past Sunday, the pastor (a conservative and an inerrantist) made an aside comment that Christians should not be beating each other up over evolution.
Second, many people with whom I've talked have told me that the SBC has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in the last couple of decades. Would you agree with that? Any comments on it?
I include this lengthy response because I it might be of interest to you.
Yes, that is unfortunately true. I have fundamentalist friends and family, and I both love them and thoroughly enjoy ministering with them. And while I do not agree with many of their distinct positions, I don’t care that they have them.
The SBC has always been a very conservative body of Christian believers. The vast majority are conservatives in which there is a very large block of fundamentalists of various sorts. There have always been a significant minority of moderate Baptists and a very insignificant minority of liberals. The leadership of the SBC was made up of moderates and conservatives.
As I’m sure you are very much aware, the issues of biological evolution and the interpretation of the Bible caused tremendous controversy in the SBC during the 20th century. Under pressure from fundamentalists and conservatives, the SBC leadership wrote a confession of faith in 1925 and amended it in 1963. Both of these versions state the orthodox Christian beliefs that God created the world and that the Bible is authoritative. Moderates and many conservatives sought to be present an inclusive document.
However, in the 1980s, conservatives (with fundamentalist leaders) began to use their denominational leadership positions to reform the structure of the SBC to prevent anyone but conservatives from being appointed to positions in the organization. At the same time, conservatives began to fire all the non-conservatives that were already in SBC positions. They also fired conservatives who were critical of the other firings and the takeover. This continued through the 1990s and culminated in the conservatives and fundamentalists amending the confession of faith in 2000. After it was adopted, every employee of the SBC was required to sign this document or be fired. Many, many were fired or made a hasty retreat before they were. By itself, the implementation of this confession and its fall out had the SBC reeling from the inside out.
However, the 1963 version of the confession included a prologue that explicitly stated that this document was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” This allowed SBC employees (particularly seminary professors) from holding positions contrary to the 2000 confession just so long as they do not teach or preach otherwise. The last decade of the SBC has been repeated incidences of fundamentalist weeding these employees out and getting them fired.
What occurred in the SBC seminaries during the 1990s and 2000s has now begun to occur in Baptist colleges such as Carson Newman in TN and, most recently, at Truett-McConnell College in Georgia which plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the 2000 confession.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4671/53/
Many of the same fundamentalist leaders are involved.
None of the three Baptist confessions (even the fundamentalist penned version of 2000) reference the issue of evolution either explicitly or implicitly.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp
But there are many issues important to SBC fundamentalists on which there is less than solid convention support. And there is very little support for amending the Baptist confession.
Therefore, for the past few years, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has been using the trustee system of the various convention agencies, including the seminaries, to enact theological standards which would not pass via the regular practice of convention vote.
I mention all this because if you’re asking about the SBC becoming increasingly fundamentalistic and how this relates to evolution and education (particularly in TN), then this is what has been done to the Baptist seminaries and what is now being done at the Baptist colleges.
Third, and this is related to the second question, how common are your views on evolution among evangelicals? As I said, from my own perspective, they seem extremely rare.
From my perspective, I assume that they are very rare too. Most evangelicals seem to associate biological evolution with atheism.
But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most Southern Baptists who accept the theory of biological evolution would keep it to themselves.
Obviously, biological evolution isn’t mentioned in 2000 plus year old documents that make of the Bible. It’s certainly unessential to the Faith. A Christian can reject evolution and still have a healthy and productive spiritual life. And it’s not an issue with which the average pastor, religious teacher, or church confronts. Combined with its controversial nature, for a pastor or religious teacher to announce their support for the theory would only be a distraction from the essentials.
In my four years at seminary, I never heard a professor state their position on the issue. Only one student ever stated his position to me and only through commenting on my blog. During that time, I only heard two SBC leaders make statements at seminary denouncing biological evolution, and both of them are two of the three recognized individuals who led the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention.
Given this and all I mentioned regarding the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention, I think it’s quite understandable that many SBC employees and pastors would keep their position quiet.
Fourth, in the baptist discussion board I read when you were talking about Brady Tarr, you were talking about reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text. What do you mean by that? I'm afraid I'm not theologically trained.
It was a hypothesis I had then that I have yet to pursue any further than you have read. I have only met one Old Testament scholar (a friend) who holds this position. I’ve never seen it in any other paper, article, or book that I can find.
The Apocalyptic genre of literature essentially presents a “spiritual” interpretation of history. It offers a “behind-the-scenes” view of what is going on with particular events and peoples and how it relates to God and the writer of the apocalyptic work’s intended audience. Apocalyptic literature is popularly known to focus on future events, but it just as often comments on present and past events. The Biblical books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are prime examples but there are others in and outside the Jewish and Christian canons.
Apocalyptic literature will use symbolism, word play, exaggerated actions, fantastic creatures, “angelic beings”, truncated history, and otherworldly scenarios. This Biblical genre has a lot in common with basic dreams and many apocalyptic passages will occur in the context of a dream (Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7; but also, as I will argue one day, Genesis 28, 40, and 41). The first three chapters of Genesis contain symbolism, puns and word play, fantastic talking animals, “angelic beings”, and many other apocalyptic characteristics that I’ll argue. The connection to the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 is my favourite.
But even though my apocalyptic argument has yet to be made, many other evangelical and conservative scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the Genesis story hold the story to be figurative but true because its genre (whether poem, psalm, apocalypse, “myth”, short-story, etc.) permits to be non-literal but true.
Ask a fundamentalist about whether he or she believes that the book of Revelation is true. Naturally, he or she will say yes that they do, even though it is written in symbolic, non-literal language.
Fifth, have you been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? I don't think it's far from you, but I figured you'd have blogged about it if you had gone. Any comments on it?
I have not been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
It was this question of which I was reminded while reading the Baptist Press article on “Noah’s Ark”. The Baptist Press quoted a statement from Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I currently live just over an hour away from the museum but have yet to visit.
Nevertheless, the student sent me a few questions whose answers I shall now post.
First, are you currently a Baptist pastor?
No. I am a Baptist looking for a ministry in which to pastor.
I’ve pastored in churches in Texas and North Carolina.
I’m a son of a Baptist pastor and a grandson of Baptist missionaries.
Oddly enough, while I have been looking for ministry work in Southern Baptist churches, my wife and I have been attending a Methodist church here in Ohio, partly because it is like a Southern Baptist church we enjoyed in Texas.
And just this past Sunday, the pastor (a conservative and an inerrantist) made an aside comment that Christians should not be beating each other up over evolution.
Second, many people with whom I've talked have told me that the SBC has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in the last couple of decades. Would you agree with that? Any comments on it?
I include this lengthy response because I it might be of interest to you.
Yes, that is unfortunately true. I have fundamentalist friends and family, and I both love them and thoroughly enjoy ministering with them. And while I do not agree with many of their distinct positions, I don’t care that they have them.
The SBC has always been a very conservative body of Christian believers. The vast majority are conservatives in which there is a very large block of fundamentalists of various sorts. There have always been a significant minority of moderate Baptists and a very insignificant minority of liberals. The leadership of the SBC was made up of moderates and conservatives.
As I’m sure you are very much aware, the issues of biological evolution and the interpretation of the Bible caused tremendous controversy in the SBC during the 20th century. Under pressure from fundamentalists and conservatives, the SBC leadership wrote a confession of faith in 1925 and amended it in 1963. Both of these versions state the orthodox Christian beliefs that God created the world and that the Bible is authoritative. Moderates and many conservatives sought to be present an inclusive document.
However, in the 1980s, conservatives (with fundamentalist leaders) began to use their denominational leadership positions to reform the structure of the SBC to prevent anyone but conservatives from being appointed to positions in the organization. At the same time, conservatives began to fire all the non-conservatives that were already in SBC positions. They also fired conservatives who were critical of the other firings and the takeover. This continued through the 1990s and culminated in the conservatives and fundamentalists amending the confession of faith in 2000. After it was adopted, every employee of the SBC was required to sign this document or be fired. Many, many were fired or made a hasty retreat before they were. By itself, the implementation of this confession and its fall out had the SBC reeling from the inside out.
However, the 1963 version of the confession included a prologue that explicitly stated that this document was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” This allowed SBC employees (particularly seminary professors) from holding positions contrary to the 2000 confession just so long as they do not teach or preach otherwise. The last decade of the SBC has been repeated incidences of fundamentalist weeding these employees out and getting them fired.
What occurred in the SBC seminaries during the 1990s and 2000s has now begun to occur in Baptist colleges such as Carson Newman in TN and, most recently, at Truett-McConnell College in Georgia which plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the 2000 confession.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4671/53/
Many of the same fundamentalist leaders are involved.
None of the three Baptist confessions (even the fundamentalist penned version of 2000) reference the issue of evolution either explicitly or implicitly.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp
But there are many issues important to SBC fundamentalists on which there is less than solid convention support. And there is very little support for amending the Baptist confession.
Therefore, for the past few years, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has been using the trustee system of the various convention agencies, including the seminaries, to enact theological standards which would not pass via the regular practice of convention vote.
I mention all this because if you’re asking about the SBC becoming increasingly fundamentalistic and how this relates to evolution and education (particularly in TN), then this is what has been done to the Baptist seminaries and what is now being done at the Baptist colleges.
Third, and this is related to the second question, how common are your views on evolution among evangelicals? As I said, from my own perspective, they seem extremely rare.
From my perspective, I assume that they are very rare too. Most evangelicals seem to associate biological evolution with atheism.
But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most Southern Baptists who accept the theory of biological evolution would keep it to themselves.
Obviously, biological evolution isn’t mentioned in 2000 plus year old documents that make of the Bible. It’s certainly unessential to the Faith. A Christian can reject evolution and still have a healthy and productive spiritual life. And it’s not an issue with which the average pastor, religious teacher, or church confronts. Combined with its controversial nature, for a pastor or religious teacher to announce their support for the theory would only be a distraction from the essentials.
In my four years at seminary, I never heard a professor state their position on the issue. Only one student ever stated his position to me and only through commenting on my blog. During that time, I only heard two SBC leaders make statements at seminary denouncing biological evolution, and both of them are two of the three recognized individuals who led the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention.
Given this and all I mentioned regarding the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention, I think it’s quite understandable that many SBC employees and pastors would keep their position quiet.
Fourth, in the baptist discussion board I read when you were talking about Brady Tarr, you were talking about reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text. What do you mean by that? I'm afraid I'm not theologically trained.
It was a hypothesis I had then that I have yet to pursue any further than you have read. I have only met one Old Testament scholar (a friend) who holds this position. I’ve never seen it in any other paper, article, or book that I can find.
The Apocalyptic genre of literature essentially presents a “spiritual” interpretation of history. It offers a “behind-the-scenes” view of what is going on with particular events and peoples and how it relates to God and the writer of the apocalyptic work’s intended audience. Apocalyptic literature is popularly known to focus on future events, but it just as often comments on present and past events. The Biblical books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are prime examples but there are others in and outside the Jewish and Christian canons.
Apocalyptic literature will use symbolism, word play, exaggerated actions, fantastic creatures, “angelic beings”, truncated history, and otherworldly scenarios. This Biblical genre has a lot in common with basic dreams and many apocalyptic passages will occur in the context of a dream (Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7; but also, as I will argue one day, Genesis 28, 40, and 41). The first three chapters of Genesis contain symbolism, puns and word play, fantastic talking animals, “angelic beings”, and many other apocalyptic characteristics that I’ll argue. The connection to the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 is my favourite.
But even though my apocalyptic argument has yet to be made, many other evangelical and conservative scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the Genesis story hold the story to be figurative but true because its genre (whether poem, psalm, apocalypse, “myth”, short-story, etc.) permits to be non-literal but true.
Ask a fundamentalist about whether he or she believes that the book of Revelation is true. Naturally, he or she will say yes that they do, even though it is written in symbolic, non-literal language.
Fifth, have you been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? I don't think it's far from you, but I figured you'd have blogged about it if you had gone. Any comments on it?
I have not been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
It was this question of which I was reminded while reading the Baptist Press article on “Noah’s Ark”. The Baptist Press quoted a statement from Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I currently live just over an hour away from the museum but have yet to visit.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Global Warming
Let it be known: I, PC, believe that the average temperature of the planet Earth is warming. Furthermore, I, PC, believe that human beings are contributing to Global Warming.
Having stated the above, let us consider the findings of the IPCC U.N. Panel Report on Global Warming.
Over the last century, the average temperature of the earth has risen 1.33 degrees.
The earth’s temperature could rise by 8 degrees if the levels of CO2 double over pre-industrial levels. The pre-Industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level of CO2 is 380 ppm. Over the past 200+ years the CO2 level has risen by 100 ppm. For the temperature of the earth to possibly rise by 8 degrees, the C02 level must rise by 180ppm.
Global Warming has caused the oceans to warm and thus has caused them to expand, which accounts for 60-70 percent of the 0.07 of an inch per year rise in global sea levels seen in the years between 1961 and 2003. The rest of the rise is accounted for by shrinkage of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.
Thus, over the past 50 years the oceans have raised 0.07 of an inch. This means that at the current level, the oceans could rise to the level of 1.4 of an inch in the next 1000 years. The highest prediction of sea-level increase by the end of the century now advocated “reputable” scientists is now of up to 23 inches, substantially better their own earlier predictions of 29 inches -- and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore (not reputable). Even then, 20 feet is substantially less that which is perpetuated by other Hollywood science fiction fantasy films: Waterworld, A.I., and The Day After Tommorrow. It’s getting better all the time. However, I recall Roger Ebert’s review of Vice President Gore’s film in which he stated his honest position that he was supporting the film for political reasons … even though he himself knew that Gore’s predictions were obviously exaggerated. Hey, it’s more honesty than we get from “Creationist Scientists”.
Over the next 100 years the temperature of the earth could rise by 2.5 degrees.
And yet, while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds.
Now let us consider the facts as they are generally agreed upon by the scientific community of climatologists.
The General Consensus Concerning Global Warming
- Global Warming has been occurring for 10,000 years.
- Global Warming has occurred numerous times before (followed by Global Cooling) and will probably continue as long as the Earth exists.
- The “problem” of global warming would exist even if man did not exist and no CO2s were released into the atmosphere.
- Moreover, even if we ceased emitting CO2 today, the current “problem” would continue to exist.
- Man’s contribution to global warming is minor if not insignificant. An apt analogy would be thinking of man’s contribution to Global Warming as like a man throwing a charcoal briquette on an already raging fire place fire.
- There is NO evidence that we are currently feeling the effects of global warming.
- There is NO proof that this “problem” of global warming (either the man-made factor or the natural factor) will lead to problems (either major or minor). Indeed, there is no general or even significant consensus among climatologists on what will be the effect (if any) on average global temperatures.
- Even if we assume that this “problem” of global warming is indeed a real and true problem, by the most exuberant, fringe predictions, the problem will not reach dangerous proportions for 1000 years.
- Furthermore, the “problem” of global warming in the Western world will disappear in a 100 years even if the current situation if not addressed.
- Indeed, the problem of global warming as advocated by its most ardent political and environmental supporters is not necessarily focused on current CO2 levels as it is focused on future CO2 levels.
So, if Global Warming is really no big deal as I claim, then why is the whole world up in arms about the issue and so many people completely terrified of “apocalyptic destruction”?
1) There are many climatologists and other scientists who realize that the human contribution is minimal at best, but they nevertheless desire that this “problem” be fixed. Unfortunately, like so many people in this world (both good and bad), too many climatologists appear to be willing to allow errors of exaggeration, polarization [no pun] and general disinformation to permeate as long as they think such errors will benefit their goal.
I’d also add that too many climatologists (like too many other scientists) see the Global Warming “Problem” as a means of gaining grants and further support for their studies of this phenomena.
2) People in general have an inclination towards fear and pessimism. Too many people have had various experiences in their lives that cause them to expect the worst. They tend to live their lives in perpetual fear of the world.
Furthermore, too many people have too many axes to grind. There are a lot of people in this world who hate America and other highly developed nations. They hate the Western-European world. They hate capitalism. They hate corporations and businesses. They hate wealthy people in general (even if they themselves are wealthy in particular). They hate both history and progress. They just hate and only love hating. Global Warming has been a great focus and excuse for their hate.
3) Closely related to the previous reason, it appears that the motives of too many global warming advocates (both political and environmental) are mostly if not purely economic.
A) Nations where both citizens and governments agree that global warming is a reality and a problem that must be dealt with are still not doing anything. Indeed, NO government signed the Kyoto Protocol except Romania. All the nations which are blaming the United States, Australia and others for global warming are not altering their CO2 themselves.
B) The “threat” of global warming has been highly advocated by various communist groups and former communist leaders.
C) Global warming advocates want the “developed” nations of the world to dramatically and drastically alter our lives on the basis of an uncertain hypothesis.
D) They appear to give no thought whatsoever to the consequences their demands would produce. Allow me to play Ford’s advocate here if I may: isn’t it possible that their proposed solution to the problem of global warming would be the cause of a problem worse than that which is predicted from global warming? Perhaps not but the lack of consideration is troubling.
E) There appears to be no interest in solving this “problem” apart from CO2 cuts or even apart from CO2 cuts that do not involve economical resolutions.
F) Why are they so sure that there is ONLY ONE solution to this “problem”? If their only goal is to save the planet then why are they so determined to do so only by one particular method? Should they not be interested in other solutions? Especially, if this solution could draw a greater consensus of support?
G) Furthermore, (and this is the one which no one in liberal politics is yet considering) what are the Western nations going to do about the rest of the world? Unfortunately, if global warming is a serious problem in our future then the real problem lies not in the developed nations of the world but in the developing nations. Let us be realistic: the developed nations of the Western world have been progressing away from CO2 emitting resources for decades. Indeed, the desire of nations and businesses to find alternative sources of fuel for industry predates advent of global warming hysteria. To be sure, the move towards cleaner and safer fuels will occur and would be occurring even if global warming were not a headline grabbing news story. Indeed, a hundred years from now the developed nations of the Western world will not be using very many CO2 emitting resources just as they did not use very many CO2 emitting resources a hundred years ago. But what about the developing nations of the world? They are just now reaching their potential for serious industrial economies. A hundred years from now it will be the developing nations of the world who will be the major emitters of CO2. Are the developed nations of the Western world, still guilt-ridden and reeling over previous centuries of “third-world” colonialism, prepared to severely halt the economic development of the poorest nations of the world? How do you think those nations will respond? What will they think of the former colonial powers who built their empires partly by the use of CO2 emitting resources now attempting to stop nations they once dominated from using wealth-creating resources? What will these developing nations believe to be the motive of the Western world?
Now the major question that needs to be answered is this: why am I interested in this topic?
I have two great loves in my life (apart from God in Christ and my beautiful wife, Lisa). These loves are art (mainly literature) and theology. If you trace back through my life at all of my interests, you will find that they all interweave around my love for literature and my love for the Christian Faith. Thus, the issue of Global Warming falls into these two great loves.
1) Two of the novels that I am writing touch upon the issue of Global Warming (one directly and the other indirectly) at least in terms of the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme that accompanies modern environmentalism. Thus I am studying the issue in order to write about it with some modicum of intelligence.
2) My second interest in this issue as it pertains to theology and studies of the Christian Faith is the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme. I am quite interested in the similarities between Global Warming doomsday scenarios and Dispensational doomsday scenarios. I am further interested in the irony of so many “educated” secularists and even some “progressive” Christians who mock the doomsday scenarios of Christian Fundamentalists and Dispensationalists but then turn around and proclaim that the environmental “end is near”. There is some further irony in the fact that so many of these “intellectuals” will roll their eyes at the thought of a universal Flood in Genesis but then turn around and warn the world against the coming flood the rising oceans! Amazing.
For the purposes of this article, I am limiting my in-depth comments to the similarities between the intolerant mentalities of too many Global Warming advocates and the mentalities of too many Christian Fundamentalists.
Naturally, Fundamentalism is not a specifically Christian religious phenomenon. Islam, Hinduism, even Radical Liberal Christianity have developed the Fundamentalist mindset. I think “mindset” is a very good is a good designator for “fundamentalism,” at least in its worst and too often stereotypical form. See here. I know many many “Fundamentalists” who are quite loving, tolerant and educated. They are the very disciples that God has called his followers to be in Christ. They just express their faith in a highly traditional and cultural manner.
There are many moderate to liberal Christians (even some conservatives like myself) who have been witnessing and studying the rise of fundamentalism in the world, both in its mildest and most radical forms. We have seen this in the SBC and in the Middle East. But, as I have noted before, even liberalism and liberal groups are not immune from fundamentalistic tendencies.
Allow me to give a few interesting characteristics of (post-?) modern fundamentalism:
1) Fundamentalism targets and develops out of “minority” groups that feel disenfranchised or persecuted.
2) Fundamentalist groups (particularly those on the wane) often attach themselves to rising popular movements. The purpose of such attachment is to ride the coat tails. Modern examples of this include the Christian religious fundamentalist attachment to secular political and economic conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s, the Islamic religious fundamentalist attachment to Pan-Arabism and the response of developing nations to Post-Colonialism. I would also add the current movement among Communist groups to attach themselves to environmental activism.
3) Because fundamentalism almost always feeds upon minority disenfranchisement, a greater feeling of rigid conformity and intolerance of alternate opinion exists than would be apparent than if the group was in ascendancy.
Thus, when I look at Global Warming issue, I see some obvious similarities with Christian Fundamentalism. And these similarities are red flags indicating to me a serious problem.
1) There is an extreme intolerance of skeptics and other opinions, even of those who agree with the basic position but doubt the severity of the problem. This intolerance reaches the point where dissent is intimidated, forced into silence and removed from positions of public correspondence. Forced silence is always a major red flag. Really, if these Global Warming advocates are so sure that they are correct, if they are so sure that they have the evidence on their side, if they are so sure that their position is the only one that could ever reasonably be possible then, why are they so scared to have anyone publicly criticize their Global Warming position? They should jump at the chance to publicly debate this issue and prove their opponents and other skeptics wrong. We can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.
2) There is an obvious tendency towards exaggeration among Global Warming advocates. I’ve already mentioned the use of worst case scenario figures. Too many global warming advocates promote hypothetical scenarios which use the highest possible numbers with the greatest presumed catastrophe that those who hold these highest possible numbers can envision. Such irresponsible abandon is not only borders upon criminal negligence but it is detrimental to any real problem that may exist. Who will believe the actual evidence when the exaggerated figures and scenarios prove to be false? I have already noted that while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds. Thus the general consensus among scientists interpreting the data that is the basis of the Global Warming issue is that the “problematic” situation is diminishing. Yet while the data shows a diminishing problem, the response to this data from Global Warming advocates is an increase in predictive “doomsday” hysteria, a shriller call for absolute action and a swelling intolerance to all dissent. Again, we can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.
3) There is an obvious tendency among Global Warming advocates to express their concern with “doomsday” predictions. I am always suspicious of theories and worldviews that resemble the apocalyptic. Let us be honest: the behavior and apparent mentality of too many global warming advocates resembles and reeks of that which is so commonly found in the more extreme versions of religious fundamentalism. Such unthinking, emotional hysterics (especially when the basis of their claims diminishes) should make you question the validity of those claims. Always beware of such nonintellectual and ignorant assertions. It always leads to blind obedience to particular philosophies that cannot stand up apart from such rigid conformity. What is worse, such blind conformity creates followers that are completely unable to either defend or even express their view. Perhaps such a scenario is appropriate for philosophies, religions and movements that we as Christians would otherwise prefer to go away, but it is not a situation we’d appreciate amongst our own ranks and with positions we believe to be true. With regards to the SBC … uncanny.
Thus, if there actually is an approaching problem related to Global Warming, its advocates have preceded with methods that are counterproductive. The same can be said for Christian Fundamentalists.
So from observations and study, I think we can learn much about human nature and religious fundamentalism from the Global Warming phenomenon.
How is it going to end? With a whimper. For the next several decades the scientific data will continue to slowly out and the “problem” of Global Warming will become less and less of an important issue amidst public consideration. Oh, it won’t be phenomenally and publicly refuted. There are too many people who have invested too much capital to see themselves publicly embarrassed. And those who have publicly criticized the Global Warming hysterics do not need vindication; they simply want the issue to go away. Thus one day our children, grand children, etc. will wake up one morning and ask themselves, “Hey, what ever happened to that Global Warming problem thing?” Yes, by that time, there will be another doomsday issue that we MUST solve and with which NO dissension must be allowed.
The same can be said of the Conservative Resurgence.
Having stated the above, let us consider the findings of the IPCC U.N. Panel Report on Global Warming.
Over the last century, the average temperature of the earth has risen 1.33 degrees.
The earth’s temperature could rise by 8 degrees if the levels of CO2 double over pre-industrial levels. The pre-Industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level of CO2 is 380 ppm. Over the past 200+ years the CO2 level has risen by 100 ppm. For the temperature of the earth to possibly rise by 8 degrees, the C02 level must rise by 180ppm.
Global Warming has caused the oceans to warm and thus has caused them to expand, which accounts for 60-70 percent of the 0.07 of an inch per year rise in global sea levels seen in the years between 1961 and 2003. The rest of the rise is accounted for by shrinkage of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.
Thus, over the past 50 years the oceans have raised 0.07 of an inch. This means that at the current level, the oceans could rise to the level of 1.4 of an inch in the next 1000 years. The highest prediction of sea-level increase by the end of the century now advocated “reputable” scientists is now of up to 23 inches, substantially better their own earlier predictions of 29 inches -- and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore (not reputable). Even then, 20 feet is substantially less that which is perpetuated by other Hollywood science fiction fantasy films: Waterworld, A.I., and The Day After Tommorrow. It’s getting better all the time. However, I recall Roger Ebert’s review of Vice President Gore’s film in which he stated his honest position that he was supporting the film for political reasons … even though he himself knew that Gore’s predictions were obviously exaggerated. Hey, it’s more honesty than we get from “Creationist Scientists”.
Over the next 100 years the temperature of the earth could rise by 2.5 degrees.
And yet, while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds.
Now let us consider the facts as they are generally agreed upon by the scientific community of climatologists.
The General Consensus Concerning Global Warming
- Global Warming has been occurring for 10,000 years.
- Global Warming has occurred numerous times before (followed by Global Cooling) and will probably continue as long as the Earth exists.
- The “problem” of global warming would exist even if man did not exist and no CO2s were released into the atmosphere.
- Moreover, even if we ceased emitting CO2 today, the current “problem” would continue to exist.
- Man’s contribution to global warming is minor if not insignificant. An apt analogy would be thinking of man’s contribution to Global Warming as like a man throwing a charcoal briquette on an already raging fire place fire.
- There is NO evidence that we are currently feeling the effects of global warming.
- There is NO proof that this “problem” of global warming (either the man-made factor or the natural factor) will lead to problems (either major or minor). Indeed, there is no general or even significant consensus among climatologists on what will be the effect (if any) on average global temperatures.
- Even if we assume that this “problem” of global warming is indeed a real and true problem, by the most exuberant, fringe predictions, the problem will not reach dangerous proportions for 1000 years.
- Furthermore, the “problem” of global warming in the Western world will disappear in a 100 years even if the current situation if not addressed.
- Indeed, the problem of global warming as advocated by its most ardent political and environmental supporters is not necessarily focused on current CO2 levels as it is focused on future CO2 levels.
So, if Global Warming is really no big deal as I claim, then why is the whole world up in arms about the issue and so many people completely terrified of “apocalyptic destruction”?
1) There are many climatologists and other scientists who realize that the human contribution is minimal at best, but they nevertheless desire that this “problem” be fixed. Unfortunately, like so many people in this world (both good and bad), too many climatologists appear to be willing to allow errors of exaggeration, polarization [no pun] and general disinformation to permeate as long as they think such errors will benefit their goal.
I’d also add that too many climatologists (like too many other scientists) see the Global Warming “Problem” as a means of gaining grants and further support for their studies of this phenomena.
2) People in general have an inclination towards fear and pessimism. Too many people have had various experiences in their lives that cause them to expect the worst. They tend to live their lives in perpetual fear of the world.
Furthermore, too many people have too many axes to grind. There are a lot of people in this world who hate America and other highly developed nations. They hate the Western-European world. They hate capitalism. They hate corporations and businesses. They hate wealthy people in general (even if they themselves are wealthy in particular). They hate both history and progress. They just hate and only love hating. Global Warming has been a great focus and excuse for their hate.
3) Closely related to the previous reason, it appears that the motives of too many global warming advocates (both political and environmental) are mostly if not purely economic.
A) Nations where both citizens and governments agree that global warming is a reality and a problem that must be dealt with are still not doing anything. Indeed, NO government signed the Kyoto Protocol except Romania. All the nations which are blaming the United States, Australia and others for global warming are not altering their CO2 themselves.
B) The “threat” of global warming has been highly advocated by various communist groups and former communist leaders.
C) Global warming advocates want the “developed” nations of the world to dramatically and drastically alter our lives on the basis of an uncertain hypothesis.
D) They appear to give no thought whatsoever to the consequences their demands would produce. Allow me to play Ford’s advocate here if I may: isn’t it possible that their proposed solution to the problem of global warming would be the cause of a problem worse than that which is predicted from global warming? Perhaps not but the lack of consideration is troubling.
E) There appears to be no interest in solving this “problem” apart from CO2 cuts or even apart from CO2 cuts that do not involve economical resolutions.
F) Why are they so sure that there is ONLY ONE solution to this “problem”? If their only goal is to save the planet then why are they so determined to do so only by one particular method? Should they not be interested in other solutions? Especially, if this solution could draw a greater consensus of support?
G) Furthermore, (and this is the one which no one in liberal politics is yet considering) what are the Western nations going to do about the rest of the world? Unfortunately, if global warming is a serious problem in our future then the real problem lies not in the developed nations of the world but in the developing nations. Let us be realistic: the developed nations of the Western world have been progressing away from CO2 emitting resources for decades. Indeed, the desire of nations and businesses to find alternative sources of fuel for industry predates advent of global warming hysteria. To be sure, the move towards cleaner and safer fuels will occur and would be occurring even if global warming were not a headline grabbing news story. Indeed, a hundred years from now the developed nations of the Western world will not be using very many CO2 emitting resources just as they did not use very many CO2 emitting resources a hundred years ago. But what about the developing nations of the world? They are just now reaching their potential for serious industrial economies. A hundred years from now it will be the developing nations of the world who will be the major emitters of CO2. Are the developed nations of the Western world, still guilt-ridden and reeling over previous centuries of “third-world” colonialism, prepared to severely halt the economic development of the poorest nations of the world? How do you think those nations will respond? What will they think of the former colonial powers who built their empires partly by the use of CO2 emitting resources now attempting to stop nations they once dominated from using wealth-creating resources? What will these developing nations believe to be the motive of the Western world?
Now the major question that needs to be answered is this: why am I interested in this topic?
I have two great loves in my life (apart from God in Christ and my beautiful wife, Lisa). These loves are art (mainly literature) and theology. If you trace back through my life at all of my interests, you will find that they all interweave around my love for literature and my love for the Christian Faith. Thus, the issue of Global Warming falls into these two great loves.
1) Two of the novels that I am writing touch upon the issue of Global Warming (one directly and the other indirectly) at least in terms of the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme that accompanies modern environmentalism. Thus I am studying the issue in order to write about it with some modicum of intelligence.
2) My second interest in this issue as it pertains to theology and studies of the Christian Faith is the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme. I am quite interested in the similarities between Global Warming doomsday scenarios and Dispensational doomsday scenarios. I am further interested in the irony of so many “educated” secularists and even some “progressive” Christians who mock the doomsday scenarios of Christian Fundamentalists and Dispensationalists but then turn around and proclaim that the environmental “end is near”. There is some further irony in the fact that so many of these “intellectuals” will roll their eyes at the thought of a universal Flood in Genesis but then turn around and warn the world against the coming flood the rising oceans! Amazing.
For the purposes of this article, I am limiting my in-depth comments to the similarities between the intolerant mentalities of too many Global Warming advocates and the mentalities of too many Christian Fundamentalists.
Naturally, Fundamentalism is not a specifically Christian religious phenomenon. Islam, Hinduism, even Radical Liberal Christianity have developed the Fundamentalist mindset. I think “mindset” is a very good is a good designator for “fundamentalism,” at least in its worst and too often stereotypical form. See here. I know many many “Fundamentalists” who are quite loving, tolerant and educated. They are the very disciples that God has called his followers to be in Christ. They just express their faith in a highly traditional and cultural manner.
There are many moderate to liberal Christians (even some conservatives like myself) who have been witnessing and studying the rise of fundamentalism in the world, both in its mildest and most radical forms. We have seen this in the SBC and in the Middle East. But, as I have noted before, even liberalism and liberal groups are not immune from fundamentalistic tendencies.
Allow me to give a few interesting characteristics of (post-?) modern fundamentalism:
1) Fundamentalism targets and develops out of “minority” groups that feel disenfranchised or persecuted.
2) Fundamentalist groups (particularly those on the wane) often attach themselves to rising popular movements. The purpose of such attachment is to ride the coat tails. Modern examples of this include the Christian religious fundamentalist attachment to secular political and economic conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s, the Islamic religious fundamentalist attachment to Pan-Arabism and the response of developing nations to Post-Colonialism. I would also add the current movement among Communist groups to attach themselves to environmental activism.
3) Because fundamentalism almost always feeds upon minority disenfranchisement, a greater feeling of rigid conformity and intolerance of alternate opinion exists than would be apparent than if the group was in ascendancy.
Thus, when I look at Global Warming issue, I see some obvious similarities with Christian Fundamentalism. And these similarities are red flags indicating to me a serious problem.
1) There is an extreme intolerance of skeptics and other opinions, even of those who agree with the basic position but doubt the severity of the problem. This intolerance reaches the point where dissent is intimidated, forced into silence and removed from positions of public correspondence. Forced silence is always a major red flag. Really, if these Global Warming advocates are so sure that they are correct, if they are so sure that they have the evidence on their side, if they are so sure that their position is the only one that could ever reasonably be possible then, why are they so scared to have anyone publicly criticize their Global Warming position? They should jump at the chance to publicly debate this issue and prove their opponents and other skeptics wrong. We can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.
2) There is an obvious tendency towards exaggeration among Global Warming advocates. I’ve already mentioned the use of worst case scenario figures. Too many global warming advocates promote hypothetical scenarios which use the highest possible numbers with the greatest presumed catastrophe that those who hold these highest possible numbers can envision. Such irresponsible abandon is not only borders upon criminal negligence but it is detrimental to any real problem that may exist. Who will believe the actual evidence when the exaggerated figures and scenarios prove to be false? I have already noted that while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds. Thus the general consensus among scientists interpreting the data that is the basis of the Global Warming issue is that the “problematic” situation is diminishing. Yet while the data shows a diminishing problem, the response to this data from Global Warming advocates is an increase in predictive “doomsday” hysteria, a shriller call for absolute action and a swelling intolerance to all dissent. Again, we can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.
3) There is an obvious tendency among Global Warming advocates to express their concern with “doomsday” predictions. I am always suspicious of theories and worldviews that resemble the apocalyptic. Let us be honest: the behavior and apparent mentality of too many global warming advocates resembles and reeks of that which is so commonly found in the more extreme versions of religious fundamentalism. Such unthinking, emotional hysterics (especially when the basis of their claims diminishes) should make you question the validity of those claims. Always beware of such nonintellectual and ignorant assertions. It always leads to blind obedience to particular philosophies that cannot stand up apart from such rigid conformity. What is worse, such blind conformity creates followers that are completely unable to either defend or even express their view. Perhaps such a scenario is appropriate for philosophies, religions and movements that we as Christians would otherwise prefer to go away, but it is not a situation we’d appreciate amongst our own ranks and with positions we believe to be true. With regards to the SBC … uncanny.
Thus, if there actually is an approaching problem related to Global Warming, its advocates have preceded with methods that are counterproductive. The same can be said for Christian Fundamentalists.
So from observations and study, I think we can learn much about human nature and religious fundamentalism from the Global Warming phenomenon.
How is it going to end? With a whimper. For the next several decades the scientific data will continue to slowly out and the “problem” of Global Warming will become less and less of an important issue amidst public consideration. Oh, it won’t be phenomenally and publicly refuted. There are too many people who have invested too much capital to see themselves publicly embarrassed. And those who have publicly criticized the Global Warming hysterics do not need vindication; they simply want the issue to go away. Thus one day our children, grand children, etc. will wake up one morning and ask themselves, “Hey, what ever happened to that Global Warming problem thing?” Yes, by that time, there will be another doomsday issue that we MUST solve and with which NO dissension must be allowed.
The same can be said of the Conservative Resurgence.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)