Never a Truer Word Spoke

We are called upon (as parasites, according to Luke the moderator) to stop wasting time, effort and money with 'creationism' (and one suspects other biblical doctrines which aren't currently in fashion in Sydney) and 'just preach the gospel'.

Presumably, the gospel is detached from the real world and people's life experience, so it is possible to preach a gospel which doesn't touch ground at any point except the resurrection. But that is a tad meaningless without the context of sin and a God of love being evidenced.

Sin connects to our lives at every point, but unless the connection is further made to the origin of sin, then the whole proclamation rings hollow. Now to people whose minds were furnished with a biblical world view (the Jews) the gospel could be easily explained, because sin and its source were known. But those outside a biblical frame of reference had to have the basis of salvation explained to them: thus Paul on Mars Hill, and elsewhere.

If we don't explain that sin was in the first couple turning against God, the creator, and abandoning the promise of his created bounty, created in love, it goes without saying (but there, I said it), then sin is inherent in the universe, not an intruder, death is natural, not the last enemy, and salvation comes from a God who made a universe that is groaning, not one that was very good. That is if words have meaning.

As an example of the issue, I came across this statement in an interview on Frontpagemag (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26626):

"FP: Is there any explanation for human evil?

Ferguson: I would point to evolutionary biology. Nature and our pre-history did not design men to be altruistic towards other men with different genes. To put it bluntly, we are genetically programmed to kill strangers, since they were once our rivals for nutrition and reproductive resources (women). Civilization is a project to prevent men from reverting to the law of the jungle. Unfortunately, civilization quite easily breaks down."

So, the gospel hits a closed door at the get-go.

If creation is denied (and denial of the facticity of Genesis 1 is a denial of creation, because it must refer to other sources on origins, overturning the biblical revelation), then all leave the lost this analysis and have to agree with the evolutionary message.

The damage this does to the gospel is horrendous, because the very identify of God is self-given as his being creator: those "who don't know what Genesis 1 means, but know that it doesn't mean what it says" are attacking God's self-authentication as to why he can be trusted, why he loves and that he saves to a better future than that which would be indicated by the world around us.

Some time ago I took a couple of friends to a gospel presentation by a Moore graduate. He gave what the worthies of the parish regarded as a very 'clear presentation of the gospel.' It was clear to everyone except my friends who complained that not only did it mean nothing to them: they couldn't understand it (now hold the Calvinist horses here); but its offence was that it ignored their concerns. It was just a theoretical exercise in pop-soteriology, nothing to do with their experience. They asked not to be invited to similar functions again. Their problem was that the world was evil, always had been and always would be: nothing was given to counter that, and the 'clear presentation of the gospel' was to their ears pretty much the same as the Buddhist 'head in the sand' response to suffering.