Talk to any wine buff and a point sure to pop up will be the supreme joy of purchasing a bottle of some relatively cheap plonk, made by some unfamiliar vintner, setting it down in your cellar, and after a few years uncorking it to discover that it has been transformed into a well tasty, underpriced gem (as an aside, note no miracle here!). This is what I’m hoping for with one of my latest acquisitions, the label of which is eponymously named Johnny Q.
This 2006 Shiraz from Tharbogang NSW (no idea!) also has another drawcard: its rather entertaining blurb on its rear label. Let me quote from it.
‘In the beginning, there was the wine creator…a sumptuous Shiraz created with your enjoyment in mind. For 6 days and 6 nights the fruit was harvested, crushed and left macerating on skins to develop a long lasting deep colour, intense bouquet and delicious taste. On the 7th day Johnny Q rested.’
Now, I’ve been known to drink a fair bit of this stuff, and I even once tried to ingratiate myself with the housekeeper at Chateau Petrus in Bordeaux in order to obtain a grape-picking job at vintage, but I really know very little about wine production. And so I’m quite happy to accept Mr Q’s oenological account as history, its platitudinous and self-praising aspects notwithstanding.
From the language used - the tight but sufficiently informative details of the passage, as well as its commonsense and everyday usage - it seems entirely the case that Johnny isn’t lying or expecting the reader to access some extra-textual code obtained from some sort of sacerdotal “expert” that unlocks the occult meaning and event sequence of Johnny’s wine-making “week”. It just seems to be, well, saying what it means and meaning what it is saying.
And you know what? I can’t imagine Peter Jensen, Rob Forsyth, Gordon Cheng or any other of the Sydney Anglican Heretics, for one moment, questioning the veracity of Johnny Q’s little history. Yet – and here it comes, guys – while they would whole-heartedly believe this guy, they obstinately deny God’s historical blurb on the first page of the Bible. Think about it: They would take at face-value the word of, in all likelihood, an alcoholic, yet torture and eviscerate the very words of God’s Spirit. Talk about the overturning of commonsense!
I think I need a drink!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Obama
A report from the US:
"The man running to be the first black U.S. president said he does not believe that the universe was created in 24 hour day periods although he believes the Bible’s creation story is “fundamentally” true. He also added that he believes in evolution and that it is not incompatible with the Christian faith. Rather, as he knows more about science it strengthens his faith."
This lends itself to a syllogism:
Obama believes X; Obama is a politician; who cares what Obama believes?
"The man running to be the first black U.S. president said he does not believe that the universe was created in 24 hour day periods although he believes the Bible’s creation story is “fundamentally” true. He also added that he believes in evolution and that it is not incompatible with the Christian faith. Rather, as he knows more about science it strengthens his faith."
This lends itself to a syllogism:
Obama believes X; Obama is a politician; who cares what Obama believes?
Random Acts of Violence
Waiting for my morning coffee I let my eyes graze across the pages of the Daily Telegraph: all trouble and strife, as one would expect from a tabloid.
It was, of course, full of reports of random acts of violence; or random violent acts (some were the result of accidents, not intention). I got to thinking: in the SADist world, this is how God brought his creation into being; it is this that forms the first step of faith (Heb 11:3), it is this that constituted the 'making' (John 1:3) and in it the Word was intimately involved (John 1:3b), in flagrant contradiction to John 1:4, of course: the contrast between 'life' and 'light of men' and the darkness and horror of violence cannot be more marked.
But that's the SADist world for you: ill-digested biblical support for a badly thought out theology (in this respect anyway). And there we have it, the God who is love, who went to the cross to overturn the last enemy and who made everything very good, did so by using random acts of violence.
I wonder what SADists think the new creation will bring?
It was, of course, full of reports of random acts of violence; or random violent acts (some were the result of accidents, not intention). I got to thinking: in the SADist world, this is how God brought his creation into being; it is this that forms the first step of faith (Heb 11:3), it is this that constituted the 'making' (John 1:3) and in it the Word was intimately involved (John 1:3b), in flagrant contradiction to John 1:4, of course: the contrast between 'life' and 'light of men' and the darkness and horror of violence cannot be more marked.
But that's the SADist world for you: ill-digested biblical support for a badly thought out theology (in this respect anyway). And there we have it, the God who is love, who went to the cross to overturn the last enemy and who made everything very good, did so by using random acts of violence.
I wonder what SADists think the new creation will bring?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Genesis: not poetry? not polemic? not . . . not...
I was reading the Creation Ministry site's article of the day treating Genesis as not being poetry. The article was helpful as far as it went (and it only went as far as it needed to, I think), but there is a further issue that needs to be dealt with, to my mind.
Many who put aside the possibility of Genesis 1 (and up to 11, in fact) being factual do so not because of some compulsion in the text; although the documentary school would claim otherwise, but because of a prior philosophical, and then theological, commitment. Their theological position derives, if I am right, from a philosophical underpinning. This is certainly the case with the documentary boys, whose basic commitment is to the materialism at an operational level, but, I think to idealism, in some form, more deeply. And so with the SAD school.
Some posts have touched on these ideas over the past year or so, with recently, may be it was John, or Neil, writing about the split in reality implied in a lot of heterodoxy on this matter: this allows people to say that Genesis is 'true' in a theological sense, but not ground that in a context that is mutually accessible to all (that is, the real world) to say that there is, in the real world, another 'reality' that materialism rightly deals with (they would say 'science'; and in doing so make a whole bunch of other intellectual blunders).
This plays fast and loose with the philosophical structure provided by Genesis 1. A structure that is very helpful in all sorts of discussions with New Ager, post-modernist, neo-romantic and even materialist ideas. This structure is the integrated nature of the real and the continuity between ideas and the concrete, given by God having really created the world into which his word can be spoken to make sense: the meaning he provides is congruent with the system of meaning that emerges from our concrete life-experience.
The second order question as to whether the creation account is factual or not then must evaporate, as its non-facticity would eliminate any role it would have to play in communication between God and man: the question disappears Klein bottle-like into its own premise; the premise undercutting the question.
Of course, on the face of it, to say that God can communicate content using non-content (that is, Genesis 1 is not factual as we know it, but factual in some other way!!) is simply incoherent and provides us with no basis for the formation of a theology. It only gives us the basis for a human-invented fantasy. And thus both old and new liberalisms and the current neo-orthodoxy emerging from Moore.
Many who put aside the possibility of Genesis 1 (and up to 11, in fact) being factual do so not because of some compulsion in the text; although the documentary school would claim otherwise, but because of a prior philosophical, and then theological, commitment. Their theological position derives, if I am right, from a philosophical underpinning. This is certainly the case with the documentary boys, whose basic commitment is to the materialism at an operational level, but, I think to idealism, in some form, more deeply. And so with the SAD school.
Some posts have touched on these ideas over the past year or so, with recently, may be it was John, or Neil, writing about the split in reality implied in a lot of heterodoxy on this matter: this allows people to say that Genesis is 'true' in a theological sense, but not ground that in a context that is mutually accessible to all (that is, the real world) to say that there is, in the real world, another 'reality' that materialism rightly deals with (they would say 'science'; and in doing so make a whole bunch of other intellectual blunders).
This plays fast and loose with the philosophical structure provided by Genesis 1. A structure that is very helpful in all sorts of discussions with New Ager, post-modernist, neo-romantic and even materialist ideas. This structure is the integrated nature of the real and the continuity between ideas and the concrete, given by God having really created the world into which his word can be spoken to make sense: the meaning he provides is congruent with the system of meaning that emerges from our concrete life-experience.
The second order question as to whether the creation account is factual or not then must evaporate, as its non-facticity would eliminate any role it would have to play in communication between God and man: the question disappears Klein bottle-like into its own premise; the premise undercutting the question.
Of course, on the face of it, to say that God can communicate content using non-content (that is, Genesis 1 is not factual as we know it, but factual in some other way!!) is simply incoherent and provides us with no basis for the formation of a theology. It only gives us the basis for a human-invented fantasy. And thus both old and new liberalisms and the current neo-orthodoxy emerging from Moore.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Mad about death
It just came back to me. One of the maddest things I'd heard about death, creaton and the Bible, in years.
I was at a talk given by a Christian academic who, when asked about the significance of death in his theolgy (his idea was that God 'created' using evolution), pooh-poohed the notion of there being no death before Adam, by saying something along the lines of:
"Of course there was death before Adam, eukaryote cells were dying all the time, that's how organisms work".
How he betrayed his minor knowledge of Genesis, and his willingness to challenge scripture to maintain his argument. A not even careful reading will reveal that 'death' refers to those creatures with 'soulish' life, not cells!
I was at a talk given by a Christian academic who, when asked about the significance of death in his theolgy (his idea was that God 'created' using evolution), pooh-poohed the notion of there being no death before Adam, by saying something along the lines of:
"Of course there was death before Adam, eukaryote cells were dying all the time, that's how organisms work".
How he betrayed his minor knowledge of Genesis, and his willingness to challenge scripture to maintain his argument. A not even careful reading will reveal that 'death' refers to those creatures with 'soulish' life, not cells!
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Sydney Anglicans, come out, come out where ever you are!
Today was the Surry Hills Festival, arguably the biggest of all Sydney’s local “Mars Hill” type gatherings. Here were several tens of thousands of mostly pagans coming together to look for the latest fad and not an Anglican in sight. In fact, did I find a single representative of the Church outreaching today? Nope, not one.
I guess the Sydney Anglicans have an excuse: they were all earnestly working out their strategies for 2009.
So, the question is this, our hubristic SAD friends: If you have a message for the world, why weren’t you there sharing God’s message of love with these fallen men and women who are made in God’s image? By your absence you demonstrate to us that you don’t have a message to give because if you did, you would have been there. Of course, if you have a message then you must be keeping it secret. You know, having the key of knowledge but locking the door and stopping all others from entering. A double dose of sin, if that’s the case.
One last point. Actually there was one Christian witness all day at a stand. There stood 2 creationists, in the sun, who had barely a moment to themselves because they were continuously engaged in conversation with men and women who were searching for answers to such side-issue questions as ‘Where did life came from and how did it arise?’, ‘Is there a God?’, ‘Who is this God?’, 'Is evolution true?, etc etc.
With all those resources, all that money, with all those paid clergy, with all that over-the-top self-belief (i.e. delusion on the level of corporate personality disorder) that we have it all and our theology is the envy of everyone else in Christendom ("Could there possibly be anyone else out there?"), and not an Anglican stand at the festival.
I shouldn't be surprised, though, as they've given the bird to the Archbishop of Canterbury and eschewed Lambeth, so why would they give a toss at some minor bumpkinish celebration in their own backyard over there at Surry Hills.
You’re a joke Sydney Anglicans. In fact, you are your own caricature!
I guess the Sydney Anglicans have an excuse: they were all earnestly working out their strategies for 2009.
So, the question is this, our hubristic SAD friends: If you have a message for the world, why weren’t you there sharing God’s message of love with these fallen men and women who are made in God’s image? By your absence you demonstrate to us that you don’t have a message to give because if you did, you would have been there. Of course, if you have a message then you must be keeping it secret. You know, having the key of knowledge but locking the door and stopping all others from entering. A double dose of sin, if that’s the case.
One last point. Actually there was one Christian witness all day at a stand. There stood 2 creationists, in the sun, who had barely a moment to themselves because they were continuously engaged in conversation with men and women who were searching for answers to such side-issue questions as ‘Where did life came from and how did it arise?’, ‘Is there a God?’, ‘Who is this God?’, 'Is evolution true?, etc etc.
With all those resources, all that money, with all those paid clergy, with all that over-the-top self-belief (i.e. delusion on the level of corporate personality disorder) that we have it all and our theology is the envy of everyone else in Christendom ("Could there possibly be anyone else out there?"), and not an Anglican stand at the festival.
I shouldn't be surprised, though, as they've given the bird to the Archbishop of Canterbury and eschewed Lambeth, so why would they give a toss at some minor bumpkinish celebration in their own backyard over there at Surry Hills.
You’re a joke Sydney Anglicans. In fact, you are your own caricature!
Knowing nothing
I've heard it often: Anglican's justifying their evangelistic approach by referring to Paul's words in 1 Cor 2:2; that is, knowing nothing but Christ and him crucified. On this they seem to restrict themselves to only laying the words on their hearers. Forget the hearer's needs, interests, and questions (oh, and the Anglicans will pontificate on which question is genuine and which is a 'red herring'), just do 'Two Ways to Live' to them.
Paul was not saying this, however, he was separating himself from the party spirit in Corinth (read ch. 1). When he spoke to pagans, he used their culture and even started from the base of God as creator (see Acts 17, as the great example of an evangelical framework).
For all their great claim to preach nothing but Christ, they miss the point, and disable a proclamation that can make contact with people!
Paul was not saying this, however, he was separating himself from the party spirit in Corinth (read ch. 1). When he spoke to pagans, he used their culture and even started from the base of God as creator (see Acts 17, as the great example of an evangelical framework).
For all their great claim to preach nothing but Christ, they miss the point, and disable a proclamation that can make contact with people!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Caterwauling
I'll bet the SADists are in full caterwauling mode as they whine about the woman bishop in WA. Pity they strain at gnats and let elephants wander around their catherals of partial belief!
Who would you prefer to debate?
Critias posted this comment. I thought I'd take it to the front of the line, I thought it so good. Hope you don't mind Critias!
I was thinking of the polarities in belief the other day. Here are some contrasts: I went to a talk a few years ago at the Humanist Society. It was on evolution or creation?. The speaker, I think he was from Sydney Uni, spoke long and well, and was congratulated by the president. His talk opposed evolution and supported biblical creation.
Another time I went to a debate in Bankstown; it was at a church. Three speakers for biblical creation, three for materialist evolution. Both sides had book tables, and for we Christians, there were some great warm conversations with unbelievers.
I remember one older man, one of the Rationalists puzzled over the conjunction of God and suffering. He wondered how children could be allowed to suffer. I joined and wondered at the futility of ending life with death: what we all face as we age (he was quite old). His philosophy gave him no help. I talked about the hope I have not only becuase God who is love created, but he whi is love has acted to unite us with him across the divide of alienation and death.
Another time I went to a debate (at Christ Church St Ives) where the topic was biblical creation. The minister, Dr Woodhouse debated with Carl Wieland of Creation Ministries on the Bible's teaching on creation. Woodhouse gave a great display of shifting hermeneutics and strange biblical thinking. He talked about 'multiple creation accounts' (he was refering to biblical references to the single creation account in Genesis 1 and 2). Carl on the other hand, stood in the Reformed tradition, and took the Bible for what it said.
Now, the contrasts: I saw hearty open and honest talks and debates with the Humanist Society and the Rationalists. From SADists I saw equivocation, absurd special pleading and a veiled supercilious truculance.
Woodhouse is now principal of Moore College: I wonder what it will be turning out: more North Shore parish disaster mongers?
I was thinking of the polarities in belief the other day. Here are some contrasts: I went to a talk a few years ago at the Humanist Society. It was on evolution or creation?. The speaker, I think he was from Sydney Uni, spoke long and well, and was congratulated by the president. His talk opposed evolution and supported biblical creation.
Another time I went to a debate in Bankstown; it was at a church. Three speakers for biblical creation, three for materialist evolution. Both sides had book tables, and for we Christians, there were some great warm conversations with unbelievers.
I remember one older man, one of the Rationalists puzzled over the conjunction of God and suffering. He wondered how children could be allowed to suffer. I joined and wondered at the futility of ending life with death: what we all face as we age (he was quite old). His philosophy gave him no help. I talked about the hope I have not only becuase God who is love created, but he whi is love has acted to unite us with him across the divide of alienation and death.
Another time I went to a debate (at Christ Church St Ives) where the topic was biblical creation. The minister, Dr Woodhouse debated with Carl Wieland of Creation Ministries on the Bible's teaching on creation. Woodhouse gave a great display of shifting hermeneutics and strange biblical thinking. He talked about 'multiple creation accounts' (he was refering to biblical references to the single creation account in Genesis 1 and 2). Carl on the other hand, stood in the Reformed tradition, and took the Bible for what it said.
Now, the contrasts: I saw hearty open and honest talks and debates with the Humanist Society and the Rationalists. From SADists I saw equivocation, absurd special pleading and a veiled supercilious truculance.
Woodhouse is now principal of Moore College: I wonder what it will be turning out: more North Shore parish disaster mongers?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Man the lifeboats! Plea for Australia(as [kinda] reported in The Southern Cross)
We are currently witnessing a dramatic ‘rescue operation’ in Australia to save those drowning in a ‘disaster’ caused by a pagan heresy.
“It’s a little like an undersea earthquake has happened offshore—and the earthquake is high on the Richter scale. And you don’t see immediate results from the earthquake until sometime later—when a tsunami wave washes onto shore, with devastating effect.”
These are the words of David Shortchanged, rector of St Barnabas, Broadway in Sydney.
They come from a DVD (excerpts on u-tube) also featuring world famous author and theologian I.O. Recusant, made for the benefit of members of their parish as they faced a vote to ‘realign’ from the Sydney Anglican Church to an Anglican Province in Terra Del Fuego.
Evolution and long ages, Shortchanged says, is “the tip of the iceberg”.
The key concerns are “the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ as Creator [and] the authority of scripture”.
The theology pushed by Shortchanged’s diocesan bishop, Rob Forsyth, is described by the bishop himself as anti-miraculous and has been categorised by some commentators as ‘reductionist’ closer to atheism than Christianity.
In his Easter 2005 message he approvingly quoted John Polkinghorne saying “the interplay of chance and necessity as the means by which the free process of the world realizes itself has already been seen as offering some degree of understanding of the presence of physical evils in the world…That is surely the coming-to-be of a great good. We have no reason to suppose – given that by his nature God is a God of process and not of magic – that good to have been capable of achievement without the long cosmic history of the interplay of chance and necessity, with all its prodigality and blind alleys, which produced both humankind and the perilous environment in which it lives.”
Indeed as I.O. Recusant says on the same video, the current struggle in Anglicanism is unique in church history; the closest comparable situation, he says, occurred in the fourth century, when the Arian faction of the church denied “the truth of the Trinity.”
As a result of their convictions, Professor Recusant and Sydney minister David Shortchanged are facing church legal charges - widely reported as ‘suspension’ from ministry.
But the charges actually strip them of ministry in the Australian Anglican Church. Although this does not necessarily mean their orders won’t be recognised by other Anglican churches across the globe.
As reported on this website, members of St Barnabas’ in Broadway voted overwhelmingly on February 13 to put themselves under the oversight of Bishop Broma from the Province of the Southern Cone (the Anglican Church in Terra Del Fuego).
In response, the Bishop of South Sydney, Rob Forsyth sent a letter to the clergy of St Barnabas’, which a diocesan spokesperson has confirmed was a “notice of presumption of abandonment of the exercise of ministry”.
There has been an extraordinary outpouring of shock and anger from evangelicals around the world – and beyond Anglicanism - at the move against the famous theologian I.O. Recusant.
Ted Olsen from Christianity Today writes that the action ‘has potential to make non-Anglican evangelicals worldwide more interested in the Anglican crisis’.
In Punta Arenas, Anglican Church League President Dr Pu Rile released a statement of ‘alarm’ at the Bishop of South Sydney’s threat to revoke Professor Recusant’s spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments.
“Professor Recusant, one of the leading Christian voices of the twentieth century, is amongst those who have voted to stand with authentic and orthodox Anglicans rather than those who have undermined biblical truth over many decades and most recently by their innovations regarding Genesis 1 and the theology of Creation, and our Lord and Creator, Jesus Christ. As one of these he has now become a target for revisionist aggression. Once again the intolerance and anti-liberal heart of liberal Christianity has been exposed.”
It is very telling that even Fulcrum - the voice of so-called ‘moderate’ English evangelicals such as Ian Sipid and OT Iose, has responded to the shock at Recusant’s treatment.
“Bishop Forsyth has now written to Dr Recusant and other clergy serving a Notice of Presumption of Abandonment of the Exercise of the Ministry,” writes Andrew Goddard in Fulcrum. “He has reportedly been told that unless he disputes these facts his spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination will be revoked on April 21, 2008…
“While Forsyth’s actions are therefore shocking and revealing of the seriousness of the situation in his diocese, they are simply the inevitable canonical consequences within the ACA of the actions taken last month by Dr Recusant, Revd Shortchanged and others. They did not relinquish their ministries under canon XIX. They did not presumably for the simple reason that they wish to continue to exercise the office and spiritual authority as ministers of Word and Sacraments conferred on them in ordination…”
Sydney Anglicans to blame
For Goddard, the central cause of the current crisis has been the failure of Sydney Anglicanism to take decisive action in over six years.
“The failure of the SAD and the inability of the wider Instruments to address the problems caused by Bishop Forsyth (for at least the last six years and arguably longer) have resulted in a situation where Dr Recusant (and many other good evangelicals and others) are no longer able to accept his jurisdiction. However, as committed Anglicans, he and they have now placed themselves under a godly ordinary and chief minister to whom they can in good conscience submit.”
And most significantly Goddard calls on all ‘moderate’ Anglicans to publicly support Recusant and Shortchanged.
“[The words] – “a priest of disciplined life, personal spirituality and great teaching capacity” – apply also to Dr Recusant, Revd Shortchanged and the others currently facing charges of abandonment in Australia. It would therefore be a great encouragement if leaders within the Church of England, in which Dr Recusant was ordained and whose life has been nourished by his writing and ministry over many decades, could publicly support him and others like him at this time,” Goddard says.
“They can and should do so even if, like many of his fellow Australian evangelical Anglicans, they would not personally have taken the steps he has felt it necessary to take at this time to fulfil his ordination vows to “banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given”
The Dean of Punta Arenas, says for our part, South American Anglicans must do something concrete to support the Australian evangelicals.
“In a shrinking world we cannot allow leaders like Recusant and David Shortchanged to be under attack, as they are, without taking some responsibility to declare our beliefs clearly.”
However as the Dean admits, the question is: “What is the best way to do that now?”
Special briefing at Cathedral
The Dean of Punta Arenas is inviting all South American Anglicans to a special briefing session this Friday afternoon to consider the implications of the latest developments in the Anglican Communion, including the Punta Arena’s Bishop’s decision not to attend the Lambeth conference.
“It is essential that we consider our Bishops’ decision to not attend the Lambeth Conference this year,” says Dean Pu Rile. “This briefing will not only provide us with biblical insight but will also give historical and legal background to their decision.”
The Dean says it’s important that all South American Anglicans take an interest in the current crisis.
“This is a defining moment in the history of our denomination. It calls upon us to stand up for what we believe. As Evangelical Anglicans we need to be clear on how to apply our commitments to the authority of Scripture to the future of world Anglicanism,” he says.
The briefing is aimed at ‘anyone who can get Friday afternoon free’.
“This is for people who do not know a lot about Lambeth and who want to understand why our Bishops, backed by Standing Committee, have acted as they have. But it is also for people who already have an understanding of Lambeth and want to think through the implications of our bishops not going,” says the Dean.
“It is easy for us to hide behind or to criticize the decisions of our bishops. But it is a moment when those of us who agree with them stand with them, and those of us who are uncertain where to stand find out the facts.”
Australians to the civil courts?
Grasping the central facts can sometimes be quite tricky.
The disputes are often legally complex, often further muddied by media spin.
An article published by AustralianChristianity.com last week appear to confirm that the Diocese of Sydney will claim it had a legitimate right to the St Barnabas’ parish property.
The acting bishop of Sydney, Ima Clueless, says diocesan officials have “a duty to protect the assets of the diocese. The parish was set up as part of the ACA (Anglican Church of Australia); the heritage of St. Barnabas’ is to be a parish of the ACA. The Diocese of Sydney is the local manifestation of the ACA; parishes of the diocese are within this structure.”
However he added: “The question of property is speculative at this point.”
A spokesperson for St Barnabas, Con Promise, also told AustralianChristianity.com, that while the parish has access to a legal fund of $1 million, they remain hopeful it won’t be needed and they will avoid the civil courts.
“No diocesan money was used to build the church. Our legal team is convinced we will be able to keep the building,” Ms Promise says.
She added: “[The ACA] has shrunk across Australia by 30 percent over the last 40 years. They don’t need our space.”
But it looks like a long, hard fight.
Bishop Rob Forsyth says the Diocese of Sydney is sticking to its guns.
“General Synod of the ACA supported a resolution saying the blessing of evolution was not against the core doctrine of the church. It is considered a secondary issue.”
Larger perspective on events
As the Dean of Punta Arenas says, the Friday briefing is also a welcome opportunity to gain some perspective on the unfolding events in Australia.
It’s absurdly difficult to keep abreast of the latest twist and turn in the unfolding saga, let alone fully grasp the implications of each event.
What does it mean for evangelical Anglicans to so closely align with traditionalist Anglo-Catholics? How will the ongoing realignment impact Anglican church life here in Sydney?
Indeed, just as I was putting the finishing touches to this article, I read that the Bishop of San Joaquin (California), John-David Schofield, formally resigned from The Episcopal Church on March 7.
Bishop Schofield had been charged with the ‘abandonment’ of the communion by presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, after his whole diocese voted to align itself with the Province of the Southern Cone.
Are these ‘realignments’ permanent? Will there ever be reconciliation?
In his resignation letter to Bishop Schori and the other American bishops, Bishop Schofield argues that the decision to find a ‘safe harbour’ with the South Americans was made on an ‘emergency, temporary and pastoral basis’.
He concludes:
“Immediately after the Diocese of San Joaquin voted to accept the invitation of the Southern Cone, the Annual Convention was greeted by these words of Archbishop Venables: “Welcome home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion.” It is my hope and prayer that one day The Episcopal Church will hear these same words…The Episcopal Church and Bishop Schori will remain in my prayers and the prayers of all parishes and missions in the Diocese of San Joaquin. The door of reconciliation will always be open.”
“It’s a little like an undersea earthquake has happened offshore—and the earthquake is high on the Richter scale. And you don’t see immediate results from the earthquake until sometime later—when a tsunami wave washes onto shore, with devastating effect.”
These are the words of David Shortchanged, rector of St Barnabas, Broadway in Sydney.
They come from a DVD (excerpts on u-tube) also featuring world famous author and theologian I.O. Recusant, made for the benefit of members of their parish as they faced a vote to ‘realign’ from the Sydney Anglican Church to an Anglican Province in Terra Del Fuego.
Evolution and long ages, Shortchanged says, is “the tip of the iceberg”.
The key concerns are “the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ as Creator [and] the authority of scripture”.
The theology pushed by Shortchanged’s diocesan bishop, Rob Forsyth, is described by the bishop himself as anti-miraculous and has been categorised by some commentators as ‘reductionist’ closer to atheism than Christianity.
In his Easter 2005 message he approvingly quoted John Polkinghorne saying “the interplay of chance and necessity as the means by which the free process of the world realizes itself has already been seen as offering some degree of understanding of the presence of physical evils in the world…That is surely the coming-to-be of a great good. We have no reason to suppose – given that by his nature God is a God of process and not of magic – that good to have been capable of achievement without the long cosmic history of the interplay of chance and necessity, with all its prodigality and blind alleys, which produced both humankind and the perilous environment in which it lives.”
Indeed as I.O. Recusant says on the same video, the current struggle in Anglicanism is unique in church history; the closest comparable situation, he says, occurred in the fourth century, when the Arian faction of the church denied “the truth of the Trinity.”
As a result of their convictions, Professor Recusant and Sydney minister David Shortchanged are facing church legal charges - widely reported as ‘suspension’ from ministry.
But the charges actually strip them of ministry in the Australian Anglican Church. Although this does not necessarily mean their orders won’t be recognised by other Anglican churches across the globe.
As reported on this website, members of St Barnabas’ in Broadway voted overwhelmingly on February 13 to put themselves under the oversight of Bishop Broma from the Province of the Southern Cone (the Anglican Church in Terra Del Fuego).
In response, the Bishop of South Sydney, Rob Forsyth sent a letter to the clergy of St Barnabas’, which a diocesan spokesperson has confirmed was a “notice of presumption of abandonment of the exercise of ministry”.
There has been an extraordinary outpouring of shock and anger from evangelicals around the world – and beyond Anglicanism - at the move against the famous theologian I.O. Recusant.
Ted Olsen from Christianity Today writes that the action ‘has potential to make non-Anglican evangelicals worldwide more interested in the Anglican crisis’.
In Punta Arenas, Anglican Church League President Dr Pu Rile released a statement of ‘alarm’ at the Bishop of South Sydney’s threat to revoke Professor Recusant’s spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments.
“Professor Recusant, one of the leading Christian voices of the twentieth century, is amongst those who have voted to stand with authentic and orthodox Anglicans rather than those who have undermined biblical truth over many decades and most recently by their innovations regarding Genesis 1 and the theology of Creation, and our Lord and Creator, Jesus Christ. As one of these he has now become a target for revisionist aggression. Once again the intolerance and anti-liberal heart of liberal Christianity has been exposed.”
It is very telling that even Fulcrum - the voice of so-called ‘moderate’ English evangelicals such as Ian Sipid and OT Iose, has responded to the shock at Recusant’s treatment.
“Bishop Forsyth has now written to Dr Recusant and other clergy serving a Notice of Presumption of Abandonment of the Exercise of the Ministry,” writes Andrew Goddard in Fulcrum. “He has reportedly been told that unless he disputes these facts his spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination will be revoked on April 21, 2008…
“While Forsyth’s actions are therefore shocking and revealing of the seriousness of the situation in his diocese, they are simply the inevitable canonical consequences within the ACA of the actions taken last month by Dr Recusant, Revd Shortchanged and others. They did not relinquish their ministries under canon XIX. They did not presumably for the simple reason that they wish to continue to exercise the office and spiritual authority as ministers of Word and Sacraments conferred on them in ordination…”
Sydney Anglicans to blame
For Goddard, the central cause of the current crisis has been the failure of Sydney Anglicanism to take decisive action in over six years.
“The failure of the SAD and the inability of the wider Instruments to address the problems caused by Bishop Forsyth (for at least the last six years and arguably longer) have resulted in a situation where Dr Recusant (and many other good evangelicals and others) are no longer able to accept his jurisdiction. However, as committed Anglicans, he and they have now placed themselves under a godly ordinary and chief minister to whom they can in good conscience submit.”
And most significantly Goddard calls on all ‘moderate’ Anglicans to publicly support Recusant and Shortchanged.
“[The words] – “a priest of disciplined life, personal spirituality and great teaching capacity” – apply also to Dr Recusant, Revd Shortchanged and the others currently facing charges of abandonment in Australia. It would therefore be a great encouragement if leaders within the Church of England, in which Dr Recusant was ordained and whose life has been nourished by his writing and ministry over many decades, could publicly support him and others like him at this time,” Goddard says.
“They can and should do so even if, like many of his fellow Australian evangelical Anglicans, they would not personally have taken the steps he has felt it necessary to take at this time to fulfil his ordination vows to “banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given”
The Dean of Punta Arenas, says for our part, South American Anglicans must do something concrete to support the Australian evangelicals.
“In a shrinking world we cannot allow leaders like Recusant and David Shortchanged to be under attack, as they are, without taking some responsibility to declare our beliefs clearly.”
However as the Dean admits, the question is: “What is the best way to do that now?”
Special briefing at Cathedral
The Dean of Punta Arenas is inviting all South American Anglicans to a special briefing session this Friday afternoon to consider the implications of the latest developments in the Anglican Communion, including the Punta Arena’s Bishop’s decision not to attend the Lambeth conference.
“It is essential that we consider our Bishops’ decision to not attend the Lambeth Conference this year,” says Dean Pu Rile. “This briefing will not only provide us with biblical insight but will also give historical and legal background to their decision.”
The Dean says it’s important that all South American Anglicans take an interest in the current crisis.
“This is a defining moment in the history of our denomination. It calls upon us to stand up for what we believe. As Evangelical Anglicans we need to be clear on how to apply our commitments to the authority of Scripture to the future of world Anglicanism,” he says.
The briefing is aimed at ‘anyone who can get Friday afternoon free’.
“This is for people who do not know a lot about Lambeth and who want to understand why our Bishops, backed by Standing Committee, have acted as they have. But it is also for people who already have an understanding of Lambeth and want to think through the implications of our bishops not going,” says the Dean.
“It is easy for us to hide behind or to criticize the decisions of our bishops. But it is a moment when those of us who agree with them stand with them, and those of us who are uncertain where to stand find out the facts.”
Australians to the civil courts?
Grasping the central facts can sometimes be quite tricky.
The disputes are often legally complex, often further muddied by media spin.
An article published by AustralianChristianity.com last week appear to confirm that the Diocese of Sydney will claim it had a legitimate right to the St Barnabas’ parish property.
The acting bishop of Sydney, Ima Clueless, says diocesan officials have “a duty to protect the assets of the diocese. The parish was set up as part of the ACA (Anglican Church of Australia); the heritage of St. Barnabas’ is to be a parish of the ACA. The Diocese of Sydney is the local manifestation of the ACA; parishes of the diocese are within this structure.”
However he added: “The question of property is speculative at this point.”
A spokesperson for St Barnabas, Con Promise, also told AustralianChristianity.com, that while the parish has access to a legal fund of $1 million, they remain hopeful it won’t be needed and they will avoid the civil courts.
“No diocesan money was used to build the church. Our legal team is convinced we will be able to keep the building,” Ms Promise says.
She added: “[The ACA] has shrunk across Australia by 30 percent over the last 40 years. They don’t need our space.”
But it looks like a long, hard fight.
Bishop Rob Forsyth says the Diocese of Sydney is sticking to its guns.
“General Synod of the ACA supported a resolution saying the blessing of evolution was not against the core doctrine of the church. It is considered a secondary issue.”
Larger perspective on events
As the Dean of Punta Arenas says, the Friday briefing is also a welcome opportunity to gain some perspective on the unfolding events in Australia.
It’s absurdly difficult to keep abreast of the latest twist and turn in the unfolding saga, let alone fully grasp the implications of each event.
What does it mean for evangelical Anglicans to so closely align with traditionalist Anglo-Catholics? How will the ongoing realignment impact Anglican church life here in Sydney?
Indeed, just as I was putting the finishing touches to this article, I read that the Bishop of San Joaquin (California), John-David Schofield, formally resigned from The Episcopal Church on March 7.
Bishop Schofield had been charged with the ‘abandonment’ of the communion by presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, after his whole diocese voted to align itself with the Province of the Southern Cone.
Are these ‘realignments’ permanent? Will there ever be reconciliation?
In his resignation letter to Bishop Schori and the other American bishops, Bishop Schofield argues that the decision to find a ‘safe harbour’ with the South Americans was made on an ‘emergency, temporary and pastoral basis’.
He concludes:
“Immediately after the Diocese of San Joaquin voted to accept the invitation of the Southern Cone, the Annual Convention was greeted by these words of Archbishop Venables: “Welcome home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion.” It is my hope and prayer that one day The Episcopal Church will hear these same words…The Episcopal Church and Bishop Schori will remain in my prayers and the prayers of all parishes and missions in the Diocese of San Joaquin. The door of reconciliation will always be open.”
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Batting against Chris McGillion
This letter was written in 1999 to the Sydney Morning Herald, following an article by the religious affairs editor, Chris McGillion:
Chris McGillion in his piece on 'creation science' neglected one key point, in my view.
He told us that it is "bad science and bad theology", but by using bad philosophy and bad biblical analysis. Apart from skirting, rather than addressing, the issues raised, he forgot to tell us he was equivocating in his use of 'science' throughout the article.
No one disputes that all biological systems are similiar and we share a common chemistry of life, but it begs the question to say that this assures us that 'grand story' evolution really happened. By the fact of common habitat life chemistry must be common between all life! It could not be otherwise. Nor does anyone dispute that we see change in and of species.
The dispute is that the totalising 'grand story' evolution meta-narrative is anything more than a construction of religious materialism in its assertion that everything comes from nothing. It is thus in direct conflict with the non-materialist theism of Christianity.
That many Christians don't realise this comes as no surprise, as Christianity habitually chases after pagan intellectual fashions in the follorn hope of gaining a hearing, much to its shame, and with a dismal track record.
Chris McGillion in his piece on 'creation science' neglected one key point, in my view.
He told us that it is "bad science and bad theology", but by using bad philosophy and bad biblical analysis. Apart from skirting, rather than addressing, the issues raised, he forgot to tell us he was equivocating in his use of 'science' throughout the article.
No one disputes that all biological systems are similiar and we share a common chemistry of life, but it begs the question to say that this assures us that 'grand story' evolution really happened. By the fact of common habitat life chemistry must be common between all life! It could not be otherwise. Nor does anyone dispute that we see change in and of species.
The dispute is that the totalising 'grand story' evolution meta-narrative is anything more than a construction of religious materialism in its assertion that everything comes from nothing. It is thus in direct conflict with the non-materialist theism of Christianity.
That many Christians don't realise this comes as no surprise, as Christianity habitually chases after pagan intellectual fashions in the follorn hope of gaining a hearing, much to its shame, and with a dismal track record.
Bacon and Disney
From an essay on the film "The Truman Show"
John Berger in his essay on Francis Bacon. Consider what he says in the following quote:
Bacon's art is, in effect, conformist. It is not with Goya or the early Eisenstein that he should be compared, but with Walt Disney. Both men make propositions about the alienated behaviour of our societies; and both, in a different way, persuade the viewer to accept what is. Disney makes alienated behaviour look funny and sentimental and therefore, acceptable. Bacon interprets such behaviour in terms of the worst possible having already happened, and so proposes that both refusal and hope are pointless. The surprising formal similarities of their work -- the way limbs are distorted, the overall shapes of bodies, the relation of figures to background and to one another, the use of neat tailor's clothes, the gesture of hands, the range of colours used -- are the result of both men having complementary attitudes to the same crisis.
Disney's world is also charged with vain violence. The ultimate catastrophe is always in the offing. His creatures have both personality and nervous reactions: what they lack (almost) is mind. If, before a cartoon sequence by Disney, one read and believed the caption, "There is nothing else," the film would strike us as horrifically as a painting by Bacon.
Bacon's paintings do not comment, as is often said, on any actual experience of loneliness, anguish or metaphysical doubt; nor do they comment on social relations, bureaucracy, industrial society or the history of the 20th century. To do any of these things they would have to be concerned with consciousness. What they do is to demonstrate how alienation may provoke a longing for its own absolute form--which is mindlessness. This is the consistent truth demonstrated, rather than expressed, in Bacon's work."
Bacon would seem, to me to have stepped past absurdity, which actively contrasted our longing and our reality, throwing up a life in disconection from any type of ideal that would find us 'at home'.
Ah, he has taken us to the edge of meaning that arises (!) from a consistent materialism. How shallow then, for the SADist position to rely on any way on the nostrums of materialism/evolution, as having any connection with the God how is love, who is only and always consistent with his holiness, and aspires to relationship with his creation, overturning the death that separates as we would push him away from us!
John Berger in his essay on Francis Bacon. Consider what he says in the following quote:
Bacon's art is, in effect, conformist. It is not with Goya or the early Eisenstein that he should be compared, but with Walt Disney. Both men make propositions about the alienated behaviour of our societies; and both, in a different way, persuade the viewer to accept what is. Disney makes alienated behaviour look funny and sentimental and therefore, acceptable. Bacon interprets such behaviour in terms of the worst possible having already happened, and so proposes that both refusal and hope are pointless. The surprising formal similarities of their work -- the way limbs are distorted, the overall shapes of bodies, the relation of figures to background and to one another, the use of neat tailor's clothes, the gesture of hands, the range of colours used -- are the result of both men having complementary attitudes to the same crisis.
Disney's world is also charged with vain violence. The ultimate catastrophe is always in the offing. His creatures have both personality and nervous reactions: what they lack (almost) is mind. If, before a cartoon sequence by Disney, one read and believed the caption, "There is nothing else," the film would strike us as horrifically as a painting by Bacon.
Bacon's paintings do not comment, as is often said, on any actual experience of loneliness, anguish or metaphysical doubt; nor do they comment on social relations, bureaucracy, industrial society or the history of the 20th century. To do any of these things they would have to be concerned with consciousness. What they do is to demonstrate how alienation may provoke a longing for its own absolute form--which is mindlessness. This is the consistent truth demonstrated, rather than expressed, in Bacon's work."
Bacon would seem, to me to have stepped past absurdity, which actively contrasted our longing and our reality, throwing up a life in disconection from any type of ideal that would find us 'at home'.
Ah, he has taken us to the edge of meaning that arises (!) from a consistent materialism. How shallow then, for the SADist position to rely on any way on the nostrums of materialism/evolution, as having any connection with the God how is love, who is only and always consistent with his holiness, and aspires to relationship with his creation, overturning the death that separates as we would push him away from us!
Come on in, Canada
"In his Easter 2005 message he [Michael Ingham] approvingly quoted Diarmuid O’Murchu saying “we should stop thinking of God as a supernatural Being located outside the universe… we should think of the universe itself as a pulsating, vibrant dance of energy alive with benign and creative potential in which God calls to us from within, not without.”
O'Murchu has arrived! He has travelled the conceptual road that the SADists are on. They are heading to the destination that O'Murchu so clearly and openly describes. The result of God 'using' evolution, is that God merges with materialism, to be ultimately subsumed by it.
Ironically I lifted the quote from the SAD website where an article discussed the parlous state of Ingham's diocese in Canada and how conservative Anglican congregations there are suffering from his 'heresy' as the Sydney writer put it. They simultaneously see heresy and decry it with one hand, while promoting it with the other!
O'Murchu has arrived! He has travelled the conceptual road that the SADists are on. They are heading to the destination that O'Murchu so clearly and openly describes. The result of God 'using' evolution, is that God merges with materialism, to be ultimately subsumed by it.
Ironically I lifted the quote from the SAD website where an article discussed the parlous state of Ingham's diocese in Canada and how conservative Anglican congregations there are suffering from his 'heresy' as the Sydney writer put it. They simultaneously see heresy and decry it with one hand, while promoting it with the other!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Ahaz and the Connect 09 Connection.
Immediately prior to the reign of King Hezekiah, Judah was under the rule of King Ahaz. While Hezekiah did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, his predecessor did not. Ahaz worshipped other gods even to the point of sacrificing his sons in the fire. Lucky Hezekiah that he didn't suffer the same fate! (actually, I don't believe that luck is a viable concept in the order of life)
So far devoid of faith in the LORD God was Ahaz that the circumstances of life he put down to the activity of other gods. 2 Chronicles 28: 22-23 describes an incident which typifies this situation. It reads: "In his time of trouble King Ahaz became even more unfaithful to the LORD. He offered sacrifices to the gods of Damascus, who had defeated him; for he thought, 'Since the gods of the kings of Aram have helped them, I will sacrifice to them so they will help me.' But they were his downfall and the downfall of all Israel."
Ahaz could not see that his earlier defeat at the hands of Aram was a punishment and even a test from the LORD God. It ought to have brought Ahaz to his knees in earnest repentance for his unfaithfulness to the LORD God. But no, as one of weak faith, Ahaz was impressed by the seeming capacity of the gods of Aram to triumph over the opponents of Aram. He went not to God but to those who were not God. This was to the downfall of Ahaz and to the downfall of all Israel.
Israel, into which we have been grafted, has repeated occasions of flagrant backsliding. It takes a special activity of the LORD God to give new life, an invigoration of faith. This occurs after an acknowledgement of debased condition, the prayers of repentance from the faithful remnant and faithful waiting on the LORD. It never comes from the activities of those who go after the ways of the world.
Sadly, we find the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney pursuing the latter course and expecting to "grow the church" through a strategy called Connect 09. The Diocese is 'kicking at the goads" because it has pursued much the same path as King Ahaz of Judah. Confronted by the eloquence and seeming strength of argument for a timescale for the earth contrary to the biblical chronology, ingrafted Israel has capitulated. On a broad scale it has taken on the long age god of the world because it seemed triumphant over the inspired Word of God. Having capitulated at this point it was ready, on many fronts, to bow the knee to Darwinism. This false god is also far removed from the revelation of the LORD God but in an absurd exercise in syncretism many in the Diocese have melded it to make a grotesque representation of the one true God.
Such is the sorry state of Israel as portrayed by the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today. When its leaders should have stood firm on the Word of God and waited on the LORD God they buckled. Now a degenerate faith is the order of the day. On the basis of its afinity to King Ahaz the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney should be on its knees acknowledging, before the LORD, its sin of syncretism. It should be repenting of this sin. It should be waiting on the LORD to raise up leaders to lead the Diocese in triumph. Without this it goes up to battle in vain.
I think James Mellor Brown (1796? - 1867), Episcopalian Minister in England reasonably foreshadowed the present condition and direction of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney in his 1838 pamphlet entitled Reflections on Geology. He was dealing with the then novel long age proposition for the age of the earth.
"I am prepared to show that in this sense religion has much to fear from philosophy [i.e., natural philosophy or science], not its facts, but its theories. Whenever those theories invalidate the historical or the physical statements of Scripture; or even when they interfere with our sober and commonly received views of it, they are pernicious. They tend to unsettle men's minds as to the veracity of the Sacred Writings. They shake the confidence with which the simple and unlearned repose upon them. Simple minds feel unable to untwine those threads of error which they are told run throughout the book; and they cannot distinguish that inspired portion which they ought to hold fast from those uninspired statements of science and history which they are assured they may safely let go. Thus doubt and distrust enter their minds, and never again can they rest with that unquestioning reliance upon the Word of God which they once felt.The sacred volume is no longer to them a rock which cannot be shaken. To this it may be added, that these theories, where they are admitted disturb the learned and acute mind still more powefully than the illiterate; for the thinking, reasoning man naturally argues, that if any statement of Scripture has been questioned, so may another, and another; and that if historical or physical facts can be disproved, whatever doctrines or precepts rest upon them must give way likewise. Thus scepticism takes gradual possession of the soul. If natural facts cannot be admitted on the mere warrant of inspiration, by what law of evidence, it may be asked, can we be compelled to believe, on the same authority, those which are supernatural? When science has once begun to tamper with Scripture, it is vain to say that it will restrict itself to physical statements, and abstain from the consideration of miracles. Men will no more stop half-way in an argument because you wish them, than a rolling stone will check itself at your bidding when half way down the hill."
Sam
So far devoid of faith in the LORD God was Ahaz that the circumstances of life he put down to the activity of other gods. 2 Chronicles 28: 22-23 describes an incident which typifies this situation. It reads: "In his time of trouble King Ahaz became even more unfaithful to the LORD. He offered sacrifices to the gods of Damascus, who had defeated him; for he thought, 'Since the gods of the kings of Aram have helped them, I will sacrifice to them so they will help me.' But they were his downfall and the downfall of all Israel."
Ahaz could not see that his earlier defeat at the hands of Aram was a punishment and even a test from the LORD God. It ought to have brought Ahaz to his knees in earnest repentance for his unfaithfulness to the LORD God. But no, as one of weak faith, Ahaz was impressed by the seeming capacity of the gods of Aram to triumph over the opponents of Aram. He went not to God but to those who were not God. This was to the downfall of Ahaz and to the downfall of all Israel.
Israel, into which we have been grafted, has repeated occasions of flagrant backsliding. It takes a special activity of the LORD God to give new life, an invigoration of faith. This occurs after an acknowledgement of debased condition, the prayers of repentance from the faithful remnant and faithful waiting on the LORD. It never comes from the activities of those who go after the ways of the world.
Sadly, we find the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney pursuing the latter course and expecting to "grow the church" through a strategy called Connect 09. The Diocese is 'kicking at the goads" because it has pursued much the same path as King Ahaz of Judah. Confronted by the eloquence and seeming strength of argument for a timescale for the earth contrary to the biblical chronology, ingrafted Israel has capitulated. On a broad scale it has taken on the long age god of the world because it seemed triumphant over the inspired Word of God. Having capitulated at this point it was ready, on many fronts, to bow the knee to Darwinism. This false god is also far removed from the revelation of the LORD God but in an absurd exercise in syncretism many in the Diocese have melded it to make a grotesque representation of the one true God.
Such is the sorry state of Israel as portrayed by the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today. When its leaders should have stood firm on the Word of God and waited on the LORD God they buckled. Now a degenerate faith is the order of the day. On the basis of its afinity to King Ahaz the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney should be on its knees acknowledging, before the LORD, its sin of syncretism. It should be repenting of this sin. It should be waiting on the LORD to raise up leaders to lead the Diocese in triumph. Without this it goes up to battle in vain.
I think James Mellor Brown (1796? - 1867), Episcopalian Minister in England reasonably foreshadowed the present condition and direction of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney in his 1838 pamphlet entitled Reflections on Geology. He was dealing with the then novel long age proposition for the age of the earth.
"I am prepared to show that in this sense religion has much to fear from philosophy [i.e., natural philosophy or science], not its facts, but its theories. Whenever those theories invalidate the historical or the physical statements of Scripture; or even when they interfere with our sober and commonly received views of it, they are pernicious. They tend to unsettle men's minds as to the veracity of the Sacred Writings. They shake the confidence with which the simple and unlearned repose upon them. Simple minds feel unable to untwine those threads of error which they are told run throughout the book; and they cannot distinguish that inspired portion which they ought to hold fast from those uninspired statements of science and history which they are assured they may safely let go. Thus doubt and distrust enter their minds, and never again can they rest with that unquestioning reliance upon the Word of God which they once felt.The sacred volume is no longer to them a rock which cannot be shaken. To this it may be added, that these theories, where they are admitted disturb the learned and acute mind still more powefully than the illiterate; for the thinking, reasoning man naturally argues, that if any statement of Scripture has been questioned, so may another, and another; and that if historical or physical facts can be disproved, whatever doctrines or precepts rest upon them must give way likewise. Thus scepticism takes gradual possession of the soul. If natural facts cannot be admitted on the mere warrant of inspiration, by what law of evidence, it may be asked, can we be compelled to believe, on the same authority, those which are supernatural? When science has once begun to tamper with Scripture, it is vain to say that it will restrict itself to physical statements, and abstain from the consideration of miracles. Men will no more stop half-way in an argument because you wish them, than a rolling stone will check itself at your bidding when half way down the hill."
Sam
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sydney Anglicans Must Listen to Satan!
"Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, 'You know nothing at all! You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." (John 11:49-50)
"He shouted at the top of his voice, 'What do you want with me Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you will not torture me!' For Jesus had said to him, 'Come out of this man, you evil spirit!" (Mark 5:7-8)
It is amazing how the words of the enemies of God have been taken by God to bear testament to his being and purposes. Evil spirits and evil men said things for their own interest but God turned their words to a better use.
Another insightful incident is recorded as follows: "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, 'If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.' Jesus answered, 'It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " (Matt. 4:1-4)
The aforesaid incident is the subject of an article by Russell Grigg, M.Sc. (Hons.) in the latest 'Creation' magazine (vol. 30 No. 2). Looking at the page inside the cover of the magazine I notice that the Creation Ministries International people say "Readers who broadly share our ministry aims may freely photocopy the text of the articles herein for genuine, non-commercial Christian educational purposes ..." I believe this blogspot meets that requirement so I am going to venture reproduction of much of Russell Grigg's article as follows:
"This is surely the most unusual testimony to the truth of Genesis Creation that we will find anywhere in the Bible or for that matter in the whole wide world - that of Satan himself. What Satan said in effect was: If you are God, create ...! Create the required organic molecules, organize them into the needed complex carbohydrates, proteins, fat, fibre, etc.,with appropriate nutritional content, and impart the necessary chemical changes normally caused by cooking. Do all this instantaneously, and do it by word of command.' (emphasis mine)
Why instantaneously? Well, suppose Christ had found a few grains of wheat somewhere, planted them in the ground and watered them while they grew. Then, several months later, He had harvested them, crushed the harvest into flour, mixed the flour with water, and baked it in an oven. This would hardly have complied with Satan's request for a miracle. It certainly would not have been the immediate alleviation of Jesus' hunger that was the motivation for the temptation.
Why by a word of command? And how would creating bread (whether from stones or ex nihilo) prove that Christ was God?
Answer: One of the attributes of God is his omnipotence, i.e., He is able to do whatever He wills (consistent with His own holiness). During Creation Week, the Creator God willed that certain events should occur by the power of His spoken word. For example, on Day 1, He commanded the light to appear. On Day 2, He commanded that there be an expanse. On Day 3, He commanded the land to appear and produce vegetation. On Day 4, He commanded the sun, moon and stars to be. On Day 5, He commanded that birds and sea creatures exist. On Day 6, He commanded that the land animals be, and He created the first man and the first woman.
All of these miracle had two things in common. They happened in response to God's will expressed through a spoken command and they happened immediately. They did not happen via any 'natural' processes over millions of years.
In the temptation, Satan was challenging Christ to duplicate in miniature form the instantaneous and fiat creation that happened during Creation Week. And of course, for the temptation to have any meaning at all, Christ must have the ability to do it. Why? Because it would have been no temptation at all for you and me! So, truly, this is a remarkable testimony by Satan, not only to the truth of Genesis 1, but also to the fact that Christ was the Creator Son of God.
In the event, Christ did not accede to Satan's challenge to use miraculous means to satisfy His own physical needs. Instead He quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'.
At the right time and for the right reasons, Jesus did create. The Apostle John describes seven miracles by Christ which he calls 'signs', and in his Gospel he shows which way these signs point. He writes: 'These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name' (John 20:31). The seven signs recorded in John's Gospel are:
1. Turning water into wine (2:1-11);
2. Healing a nobleman's son (4:46-54);
3. Curing a paralytic (5:1-15);
4. Feeding 5,000 people (6:1-15);
5. Walking on water (6:16-21);
6. Giving sight to the blind (9:1-41)
7. Raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44).
These all show Christ's sovereignty over creation. They all have two aspects in common. They all happened in response to Christ's command (whether spoken or just willed); and they all happened immediately. Did any of these miracles occur by chance random processes or over long periods of time? No, not according to the eyewitness records. Christ, the creator of time, was not bound by time."
Writer, Russell Grigg, reminds us of seven eyewitness accounts of miracles recorded by the Apostle John which demonstrate our Lord Jesus Christ's creative capacity. The Apostle John also records another miracle of our Lord Jesus Christ - his creation of all things (John 1:3). There were no human witnesses to this miracle. In this we have to trust God's word recorded in Genesis 1 and summarised in Exodus 20:11.
Also, Russell Grigg reminds us and lends support to arguments I have read here and in other places by various people - that for God to be God he has to create quickly and not by slow and gradual processes. Satan knows this. He also knows that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that to lure Jesus into submitting to his will he invited a corrupt use of Jesus' creative capacity.
Conversely, Satan has misled many in the world to believe a corrupted theory of origins which requires a slow and gradual process. Rightly, the atheist believes a slow and gradual process of origins dismisses the need for a Creator God. Sadly, those who purport to believe in Jesus Christ foolishly submit to the will of Satan when they attribute the same slow and gradual creative process to Jesus Christ. It is a corruption of his creative capacity. To compound their foolishness, in their witnessing, they accommodate the slow and gradual creative process which reinforces the atheist's rejection of any notion of God.
"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: ... a time to embrace and a time to refrain, ... a time to keep and a time to throw away, ... (Ecclesiastes 3:1,5b,6b). There is a time to take heed of what the enemies of God are saying. The measure is always how what they say sits with the word of God. Failure to discern this has disastrous consequences.
Neil Moore
"He shouted at the top of his voice, 'What do you want with me Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you will not torture me!' For Jesus had said to him, 'Come out of this man, you evil spirit!" (Mark 5:7-8)
It is amazing how the words of the enemies of God have been taken by God to bear testament to his being and purposes. Evil spirits and evil men said things for their own interest but God turned their words to a better use.
Another insightful incident is recorded as follows: "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, 'If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.' Jesus answered, 'It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " (Matt. 4:1-4)
The aforesaid incident is the subject of an article by Russell Grigg, M.Sc. (Hons.) in the latest 'Creation' magazine (vol. 30 No. 2). Looking at the page inside the cover of the magazine I notice that the Creation Ministries International people say "Readers who broadly share our ministry aims may freely photocopy the text of the articles herein for genuine, non-commercial Christian educational purposes ..." I believe this blogspot meets that requirement so I am going to venture reproduction of much of Russell Grigg's article as follows:
"This is surely the most unusual testimony to the truth of Genesis Creation that we will find anywhere in the Bible or for that matter in the whole wide world - that of Satan himself. What Satan said in effect was: If you are God, create ...! Create the required organic molecules, organize them into the needed complex carbohydrates, proteins, fat, fibre, etc.,with appropriate nutritional content, and impart the necessary chemical changes normally caused by cooking. Do all this instantaneously, and do it by word of command.' (emphasis mine)
Why instantaneously? Well, suppose Christ had found a few grains of wheat somewhere, planted them in the ground and watered them while they grew. Then, several months later, He had harvested them, crushed the harvest into flour, mixed the flour with water, and baked it in an oven. This would hardly have complied with Satan's request for a miracle. It certainly would not have been the immediate alleviation of Jesus' hunger that was the motivation for the temptation.
Why by a word of command? And how would creating bread (whether from stones or ex nihilo) prove that Christ was God?
Answer: One of the attributes of God is his omnipotence, i.e., He is able to do whatever He wills (consistent with His own holiness). During Creation Week, the Creator God willed that certain events should occur by the power of His spoken word. For example, on Day 1, He commanded the light to appear. On Day 2, He commanded that there be an expanse. On Day 3, He commanded the land to appear and produce vegetation. On Day 4, He commanded the sun, moon and stars to be. On Day 5, He commanded that birds and sea creatures exist. On Day 6, He commanded that the land animals be, and He created the first man and the first woman.
All of these miracle had two things in common. They happened in response to God's will expressed through a spoken command and they happened immediately. They did not happen via any 'natural' processes over millions of years.
In the temptation, Satan was challenging Christ to duplicate in miniature form the instantaneous and fiat creation that happened during Creation Week. And of course, for the temptation to have any meaning at all, Christ must have the ability to do it. Why? Because it would have been no temptation at all for you and me! So, truly, this is a remarkable testimony by Satan, not only to the truth of Genesis 1, but also to the fact that Christ was the Creator Son of God.
In the event, Christ did not accede to Satan's challenge to use miraculous means to satisfy His own physical needs. Instead He quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'.
At the right time and for the right reasons, Jesus did create. The Apostle John describes seven miracles by Christ which he calls 'signs', and in his Gospel he shows which way these signs point. He writes: 'These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name' (John 20:31). The seven signs recorded in John's Gospel are:
1. Turning water into wine (2:1-11);
2. Healing a nobleman's son (4:46-54);
3. Curing a paralytic (5:1-15);
4. Feeding 5,000 people (6:1-15);
5. Walking on water (6:16-21);
6. Giving sight to the blind (9:1-41)
7. Raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44).
These all show Christ's sovereignty over creation. They all have two aspects in common. They all happened in response to Christ's command (whether spoken or just willed); and they all happened immediately. Did any of these miracles occur by chance random processes or over long periods of time? No, not according to the eyewitness records. Christ, the creator of time, was not bound by time."
Writer, Russell Grigg, reminds us of seven eyewitness accounts of miracles recorded by the Apostle John which demonstrate our Lord Jesus Christ's creative capacity. The Apostle John also records another miracle of our Lord Jesus Christ - his creation of all things (John 1:3). There were no human witnesses to this miracle. In this we have to trust God's word recorded in Genesis 1 and summarised in Exodus 20:11.
Also, Russell Grigg reminds us and lends support to arguments I have read here and in other places by various people - that for God to be God he has to create quickly and not by slow and gradual processes. Satan knows this. He also knows that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that to lure Jesus into submitting to his will he invited a corrupt use of Jesus' creative capacity.
Conversely, Satan has misled many in the world to believe a corrupted theory of origins which requires a slow and gradual process. Rightly, the atheist believes a slow and gradual process of origins dismisses the need for a Creator God. Sadly, those who purport to believe in Jesus Christ foolishly submit to the will of Satan when they attribute the same slow and gradual creative process to Jesus Christ. It is a corruption of his creative capacity. To compound their foolishness, in their witnessing, they accommodate the slow and gradual creative process which reinforces the atheist's rejection of any notion of God.
"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: ... a time to embrace and a time to refrain, ... a time to keep and a time to throw away, ... (Ecclesiastes 3:1,5b,6b). There is a time to take heed of what the enemies of God are saying. The measure is always how what they say sits with the word of God. Failure to discern this has disastrous consequences.
Neil Moore
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The short run to Nihilism
Last quote from Scruton, p. 157 (its a short book):
...nihilism is the other side of religion: it is the disappointed howl of the believer on discovering that God is dead. The true nihilist is incapable of settling for a world of compromise [he speaks here of politico-religious things]...since it is a world deprived of absolutes. The death of God leaves only one remaining absolute, which is Nothingness. The duty to annihilate is the last remaining glimpse of the transendental in the heart of the one who has lost all belief in it and who cannot live with the loss.
I couldn't help but connect this wonderfully succinct analysis with that which lies at the heart of evolution, its negative engine: death. Read, and feel the irony.
...nihilism is the other side of religion: it is the disappointed howl of the believer on discovering that God is dead. The true nihilist is incapable of settling for a world of compromise [he speaks here of politico-religious things]...since it is a world deprived of absolutes. The death of God leaves only one remaining absolute, which is Nothingness. The duty to annihilate is the last remaining glimpse of the transendental in the heart of the one who has lost all belief in it and who cannot live with the loss.
I couldn't help but connect this wonderfully succinct analysis with that which lies at the heart of evolution, its negative engine: death. Read, and feel the irony.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Sydney Anglican, Gordon Cheng, Runs Hard .... Into a Ditch!
Gordon Cheng has previously attempted to negate the argument of YEC's by alleging a faulty design of the koala pouch.
In so doing, he was levelling an insult at God's creative activity at the beginning of creation.
This insult prompted an earlier rebuke from John of this blogspot and John,only a few days ago, had cause to remind us of Gordon Cheng's insult to the Lord.
As I recall, John had previously observed the need for the koala to have rear-opening pouch to protect the pouch and possible infant inside from bark, spiders and other insects falling into the pouch while the mother koala crawled about trees. Such a requirement is not similarly required for kangaroos which have a forward-opening pouch.
Further testament to Gordon Cheng's ignorance of the subject is contained in a worthy article by scientist, Dr David Catchpoole, in the latest Creation magazine (this writer is a subscriber).
I quote part of what Dr Catchpoole said in his article:
"And now the discovery of a most amazing feature of the koala's pouch makes it even harder for evolutionists. While kangaroo mothers lick their pouch clean in preparation for a new joey, it's physically impossible for koala mothers, with their rear-opening pouch, to do that. But it turns out that prior to the birth of a koala, a remarkable self-cleansing mechanism kicks in. The crusty 'wads of brown stuff' evident in the non-breeding season disappear as the 'pouch becomes a completely different place', according to Professor Elizabeth Deane of Macquarie University, Australia.¹
'It becomes glistening, pristine and almost translucent. You can go in and the back of it is almost see-through and you can see droplets of clear material on the pouch,' she said. The secret to the pouch becoming squeaky-clean is in these clear droplets oozing into the pouch - the liquid contains powerful proteins that kill microbes."²
Gordo, stop insulting God!
Neil Moore
1. Salleh, A., Koala pouch may have its own bug buster. ABC Science Online,, 31 July 2006
2. Deane's team of researchers is analysing koala pouch secretions prior to birth to identify which of the proteins are responsible for the antimicrobial action. Bobek, G., and Deane, E., Possible antimicrobial compounds from the pouch of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, Letters in Peptide Science 8 (3-5): 133-137, 2001.
In so doing, he was levelling an insult at God's creative activity at the beginning of creation.
This insult prompted an earlier rebuke from John of this blogspot and John,only a few days ago, had cause to remind us of Gordon Cheng's insult to the Lord.
As I recall, John had previously observed the need for the koala to have rear-opening pouch to protect the pouch and possible infant inside from bark, spiders and other insects falling into the pouch while the mother koala crawled about trees. Such a requirement is not similarly required for kangaroos which have a forward-opening pouch.
Further testament to Gordon Cheng's ignorance of the subject is contained in a worthy article by scientist, Dr David Catchpoole, in the latest Creation magazine (this writer is a subscriber).
I quote part of what Dr Catchpoole said in his article:
"And now the discovery of a most amazing feature of the koala's pouch makes it even harder for evolutionists. While kangaroo mothers lick their pouch clean in preparation for a new joey, it's physically impossible for koala mothers, with their rear-opening pouch, to do that. But it turns out that prior to the birth of a koala, a remarkable self-cleansing mechanism kicks in. The crusty 'wads of brown stuff' evident in the non-breeding season disappear as the 'pouch becomes a completely different place', according to Professor Elizabeth Deane of Macquarie University, Australia.¹
'It becomes glistening, pristine and almost translucent. You can go in and the back of it is almost see-through and you can see droplets of clear material on the pouch,' she said. The secret to the pouch becoming squeaky-clean is in these clear droplets oozing into the pouch - the liquid contains powerful proteins that kill microbes."²
Gordo, stop insulting God!
Neil Moore
1. Salleh, A., Koala pouch may have its own bug buster. ABC Science Online,
2. Deane's team of researchers is analysing koala pouch secretions prior to birth to identify which of the proteins are responsible for the antimicrobial action. Bobek, G., and Deane, E., Possible antimicrobial compounds from the pouch of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, Letters in Peptide Science 8 (3-5): 133-137, 2001.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Religion the Jumble
From Scruton, p. 102:
...religion simply as a set of doctrines concerning the origin of the world, the laws that govern it and the destiny of mankind will think of faith merely as a substitute for rational argument, destined to crumble before the advance of science or to persist, if at all, as a jumble of tattered superstitions in the midst of a world that refutes them.
Interesting the connections made by those outside the evangelical fold about religion, the world and its interpretation in science.
Much could be said about Scruton's analysis, but that the analysis is made is itself of significance, I think. Particularly that he can see religion as being concerned with a view of the real world, a view denied, I would suggest, by our SADist friends.
...religion simply as a set of doctrines concerning the origin of the world, the laws that govern it and the destiny of mankind will think of faith merely as a substitute for rational argument, destined to crumble before the advance of science or to persist, if at all, as a jumble of tattered superstitions in the midst of a world that refutes them.
Interesting the connections made by those outside the evangelical fold about religion, the world and its interpretation in science.
Much could be said about Scruton's analysis, but that the analysis is made is itself of significance, I think. Particularly that he can see religion as being concerned with a view of the real world, a view denied, I would suggest, by our SADist friends.
Monday, March 10, 2008
War
From my current read:
The West and the Rest, by Roger Scruton (ret'd professor of philosophy)
p. 39:
To remove the violent core from human societies is no easy task, for the urge to violence is planted in us by evolution, and war is a fact of sociobiology.
[then talks about the Christian experience and its grounds for hope, but lovely slide over to this analysis a few pages on:]
p. 43:
[the Enlightenment had given us an abstract God and] had collectively remade the God of Christianity as a creature of the head rather than the heart. God retreated from the world to the far reaches of infinite space, where only vertiginous thoughts could capture him. Daily life is of little concern to such a God, who demands no form of obedience except to the universal precepts of morality. To worship him is to bow in private to the unknowable. Worship conceived in such a way offers no threat to the Enlightenment . . .As God retreated from the world, people reached out to a rival source of membership . . .
Along which way the Sydney Anglican Diocese is the unwitting, but very willing midwife. I remember the Lord Archbishop extolling the virtues of "Christian values" some years ago; when of course, we know the core Christian value: "all our righteousness is as filthy rags". I suggested this to Peter, but received no reply: I guess that's a predictable response from a neo-evangelical to the word of God.
The West and the Rest, by Roger Scruton (ret'd professor of philosophy)
p. 39:
To remove the violent core from human societies is no easy task, for the urge to violence is planted in us by evolution, and war is a fact of sociobiology.
[then talks about the Christian experience and its grounds for hope, but lovely slide over to this analysis a few pages on:]
p. 43:
[the Enlightenment had given us an abstract God and] had collectively remade the God of Christianity as a creature of the head rather than the heart. God retreated from the world to the far reaches of infinite space, where only vertiginous thoughts could capture him. Daily life is of little concern to such a God, who demands no form of obedience except to the universal precepts of morality. To worship him is to bow in private to the unknowable. Worship conceived in such a way offers no threat to the Enlightenment . . .As God retreated from the world, people reached out to a rival source of membership . . .
Along which way the Sydney Anglican Diocese is the unwitting, but very willing midwife. I remember the Lord Archbishop extolling the virtues of "Christian values" some years ago; when of course, we know the core Christian value: "all our righteousness is as filthy rags". I suggested this to Peter, but received no reply: I guess that's a predictable response from a neo-evangelical to the word of God.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Against God
From Before Darwin:237
...since time immemorial, the most obvious argument against God's existence and source of doubt about his unique and universal goodness has been the manifest imperfection of nature, and especially the misery of a great deal of existence that tells of nothing but a bleak purposelessness. As Darwin wrote: 'it revolts our understanding to suppose that [God's] benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?'
This is from the chapter that deals with evil, goodness, and natural theology. Both the author and the natural theologians he studies are oblivious to the problem of the fall and its central position in Christianity.
Did I write 'problem'? Rather, the fall is the great rend in creation, it is the obliteration, the undoing, of the very-goodness declared by God, and rejection of relationship with God; it is man ejecting God from his life and world. If our theology of God is deficient because of a failed hermeneutic of creation (and I suspect it is in neo-evangelical circles), then our understanding of the fall and the radical besmirching of life with death that came in its train is also inadequate.
Oddly, I don't think that atheism or its materialist cousin has a helpful position on this.
What contemporary 'natural theology' is doing, (and Thomson touches on this, albeit without really understanding it, in my estimation) is to go behind the results of the fall and look at the structure of life and earth history, reading it in the knowledge of history in the Bible, but also seeing, on its own terms, its dependence. Materailism claims that life has its life in itself, finally, but it is not evident! Ironically, materialism now relies upon a certain extended 'vitalism' to explain life, the very thing for which it criticises pre-modern biology!
I met some clients of my employer recently who are profoundly disabled. It was heartbreaking to think of the frustration and bitterness of their experience, and of their parents. The materialist can offer them only dust and blank-faced emptiness in the despair of their position; our Creator God offers new life; restoration to the 'very good' and acknowledgement in Christ that all is not just not well, with the creation but that it is broken; yet his grace shines through to the re-creation.
...since time immemorial, the most obvious argument against God's existence and source of doubt about his unique and universal goodness has been the manifest imperfection of nature, and especially the misery of a great deal of existence that tells of nothing but a bleak purposelessness. As Darwin wrote: 'it revolts our understanding to suppose that [God's] benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?'
This is from the chapter that deals with evil, goodness, and natural theology. Both the author and the natural theologians he studies are oblivious to the problem of the fall and its central position in Christianity.
Did I write 'problem'? Rather, the fall is the great rend in creation, it is the obliteration, the undoing, of the very-goodness declared by God, and rejection of relationship with God; it is man ejecting God from his life and world. If our theology of God is deficient because of a failed hermeneutic of creation (and I suspect it is in neo-evangelical circles), then our understanding of the fall and the radical besmirching of life with death that came in its train is also inadequate.
Oddly, I don't think that atheism or its materialist cousin has a helpful position on this.
What contemporary 'natural theology' is doing, (and Thomson touches on this, albeit without really understanding it, in my estimation) is to go behind the results of the fall and look at the structure of life and earth history, reading it in the knowledge of history in the Bible, but also seeing, on its own terms, its dependence. Materailism claims that life has its life in itself, finally, but it is not evident! Ironically, materialism now relies upon a certain extended 'vitalism' to explain life, the very thing for which it criticises pre-modern biology!
I met some clients of my employer recently who are profoundly disabled. It was heartbreaking to think of the frustration and bitterness of their experience, and of their parents. The materialist can offer them only dust and blank-faced emptiness in the despair of their position; our Creator God offers new life; restoration to the 'very good' and acknowledgement in Christ that all is not just not well, with the creation but that it is broken; yet his grace shines through to the re-creation.
Darwin's transformation
From Before Darwin: 232
Charles Darwin's transformation from Christian believer to agnostic 'crept over [him] at a very slow rate'. For a long time he held on to a position as a theist, being prepared to believe in the existence of a God but rejecting both the Old Testament, 'from its manifestly false history of the world ... and from its attributing to God the feelings of a vengeful tyrant', and also the miracles of the New Testament.
Darwin trod the path that many individuals, and indeed the broad social sweep has and is treading.
Charles Darwin's transformation from Christian believer to agnostic 'crept over [him] at a very slow rate'. For a long time he held on to a position as a theist, being prepared to believe in the existence of a God but rejecting both the Old Testament, 'from its manifestly false history of the world ... and from its attributing to God the feelings of a vengeful tyrant', and also the miracles of the New Testament.
Darwin trod the path that many individuals, and indeed the broad social sweep has and is treading.
Gosse's Dilemma
From Before Darwin: 230
"When pressed, people often revert to believing two things at once. The evidence that the universe is huge and ancient can be assimilated seemingly without shaking the conviction that the earth itself is 6,000 years old and that all living creatures were created over a two-day period. For example: 'The school books of the present day, while they teach the child that the earth moves, yet assure him that it is a little less than six thousand years old, and that it was made in six days. On the other hand, geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense series of years.' These last words were written in 1860 (Godwin, C. W., On the Mosaic Cosmogony in Essays and Reviews, Longman Green, London 1860) and appear in a work that arguably presented a greater threat to the Established Church than the evolutionism of Erasmus Darwin, Lamarack, Robert Chambers or even Charles Darwin. Essays and Reviews is an example of the enemy within, a compilation of extremely liberal theological views by noted churchmen and academics. Among their targets was the unnecessary and outmoded belief in miracles and the biblical account of the days of creation."
How days change, but change not!!
"When pressed, people often revert to believing two things at once. The evidence that the universe is huge and ancient can be assimilated seemingly without shaking the conviction that the earth itself is 6,000 years old and that all living creatures were created over a two-day period. For example: 'The school books of the present day, while they teach the child that the earth moves, yet assure him that it is a little less than six thousand years old, and that it was made in six days. On the other hand, geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense series of years.' These last words were written in 1860 (Godwin, C. W., On the Mosaic Cosmogony in Essays and Reviews, Longman Green, London 1860) and appear in a work that arguably presented a greater threat to the Established Church than the evolutionism of Erasmus Darwin, Lamarack, Robert Chambers or even Charles Darwin. Essays and Reviews is an example of the enemy within, a compilation of extremely liberal theological views by noted churchmen and academics. Among their targets was the unnecessary and outmoded belief in miracles and the biblical account of the days of creation."
How days change, but change not!!
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Musing on Moses
I'm working my way through Hebrews these days. What a rich book it is. I wonder if in our day we downplay the status of Moses? He is the most signficiant figure of the OT and is of such stature that he makes it into Hebrews (ref ch. 3). He was an apostle: one sent from God as a messenger. Part of his message is the first 11 chapters of Genesis: we seem today to adopt an attitude of insufficient awe of God's word and the work of his messengers. I don't want us to be uncritical or not do hard work with the word; but it would be good if we submitted to the word received, rather than play it like a football.
I speak, of course, to those who discount Moses' work on origins as something less than it really is; to those who think that this part of God's revelation is to be treated with less seriousness, or with less significance than passages in the NT. Sad, but true, I suppose. Partly why our doctrine of God is so insipid these days, I suspect.
I speak, of course, to those who discount Moses' work on origins as something less than it really is; to those who think that this part of God's revelation is to be treated with less seriousness, or with less significance than passages in the NT. Sad, but true, I suppose. Partly why our doctrine of God is so insipid these days, I suspect.
Was Phar Lap Poisoned in America? Was Mike Paget Nobbled in Katoomba?
"Grace and peace to y'all. If I can hit an internet cafe up in Katoomba, I'll respond, but otherwise, see you in Feb. Can't wait."
Those were the words of Mike Paget just before leaving for CMS (Church Missionary Society) Summer Camp at Katoomba in January. If language means anything then Mike was telling us that he looked forward to dialoguing further on this site in February 2008.
Well, I have waited patiently but February has passed. We are now into March and my expectation is being eroded by continued silence.
Was I wrong, was there some discrete symbolism, or some chiasmus, or some parallelism in his message that I didn't see but which actually meant he'd had enough of us and was "giving us the flick"?
Was it Mike's genuine intention to return but something or someone happened along at Summer Camp and poisoned Mike's mind. Even worse, did something or someone influence Mike to be dishonest to the point of not being true to his word?
Mike, where are you? I am willing to continue dialogue - if only you will return. We have unfinished business!
Neil Moore
Those were the words of Mike Paget just before leaving for CMS (Church Missionary Society) Summer Camp at Katoomba in January. If language means anything then Mike was telling us that he looked forward to dialoguing further on this site in February 2008.
Well, I have waited patiently but February has passed. We are now into March and my expectation is being eroded by continued silence.
Was I wrong, was there some discrete symbolism, or some chiasmus, or some parallelism in his message that I didn't see but which actually meant he'd had enough of us and was "giving us the flick"?
Was it Mike's genuine intention to return but something or someone happened along at Summer Camp and poisoned Mike's mind. Even worse, did something or someone influence Mike to be dishonest to the point of not being true to his word?
Mike, where are you? I am willing to continue dialogue - if only you will return. We have unfinished business!
Neil Moore
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Flood
In Before Darwin, much is said about fossils and the biblical flood.
Most of it is typically question-begging; and amusingly, the question begged is begged in a hollow flourish, as though some evidence is provided. Never the case!
The book's discussion about the flood and fossils is typical.
There's lots of material on the net on these topics, so I won't labour the point.
But I will say this. Both in Before Darwin, and in the older sources cited, there seems to be a concept operating that views the global flood as a relatively calm affair, not the overwhelming catastrophe it was. This is one reason the ark would be designed as it was: best for stability in very rough water (sea state 10...for a year?). The flood would have been of such immense proportions that the tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic dimensions would begger our imaginations.
Look at the tiny volcano at Mt St. Helens in the 80s: canyons carved out in hours, trees flatted over vast areas, etc. Imagine what it would be like with huge vulcanism over the entire earth! Big stuff, indeed.
Then look at the gross geology of the earth, with features than could not be formed by current processes at current rates: hundreds of square miles of lava sheets, sedimentary beds of similar size, fossil beds with millions of creatures jamb-packed together, smashed, bent and twisted.
Most of it is typically question-begging; and amusingly, the question begged is begged in a hollow flourish, as though some evidence is provided. Never the case!
The book's discussion about the flood and fossils is typical.
There's lots of material on the net on these topics, so I won't labour the point.
But I will say this. Both in Before Darwin, and in the older sources cited, there seems to be a concept operating that views the global flood as a relatively calm affair, not the overwhelming catastrophe it was. This is one reason the ark would be designed as it was: best for stability in very rough water (sea state 10...for a year?). The flood would have been of such immense proportions that the tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic dimensions would begger our imaginations.
Look at the tiny volcano at Mt St. Helens in the 80s: canyons carved out in hours, trees flatted over vast areas, etc. Imagine what it would be like with huge vulcanism over the entire earth! Big stuff, indeed.
Then look at the gross geology of the earth, with features than could not be formed by current processes at current rates: hundreds of square miles of lava sheets, sedimentary beds of similar size, fossil beds with millions of creatures jamb-packed together, smashed, bent and twisted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
