The point of it all

I've been watching the Anglican forum for a while: on and off for years, as I now realise, and am concerned that the point of the position, referred to in some ignorance, I think, as YEC (young earth creationist), but more accurately described as 'no death before the fall salvationist', completely escapes the antagonists on the forum.
More on the antagonistic sneering at another time, but firstly the point of it all, misunderstanding of which might be the leading cause of the former problem observed.
One presumes, as a Christian, that the Holy Spirit had some point in conveying information verbally to us in the scripture. Indeed, Paul tells Timothy in 2 Ti 3:16-17 that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.". I presume that it follows that the scripture must have some real content to further this purpose. Some on the Anglican forum have referred to 'genre' criticism (do I smell the sent of Formgeschichte seeping into evangelical biblical studies?), without making any point as to where this should lead us. Needless to say, hurling air-filled elephants is no way to advance a discussion, particularly when it is done to so obviously beg the question.

The connection has to be made between form (genre, if you like) and function: which in literature is rarely perfectly unambiguous, but the argument must be mounted as to the form of the passage in question and why it might produce conclusions as to function. So what in the text of Genesis 1 and 2 suggests that it should not be taken as factual? Barr, Von Rad, Simpson (in the Interpreter's Bible), Calvin, Luther, Gunkel, and I'm sure others who don't spring to mind, take it that the author meant to make factual communication. We come closer to this debate, and I think Pattle Pun of Wheaton College says it all: 'but for the hermeneutical considerations suggested by modern science . . .' He would agree that the author,s intention was to communicate the direct information as it sits on the face of the text. But he equivocates.

It is not 'modern science' that would lead to a challenging the facticity of Genesis 1 and 2, it is modern naturalism: a philosophical, if not religious position; the dominant religious framework of belief of the modern mind, I daresay. This view denies that there is anything beyond the observable now; but which to make this position has to rely on unexplicated metaphysical considerations: it is, I think, an elaborate attempt to blunt the self refuting starting point of positivism. It works for many because to deny the supernatural is spiritually convenient, as the Bible does tell us.

Particularly ironic is that modern experimental science grew to potency on the philosophy strength of a creator having provided this world: the early modern scientists were encouraged in their studies by a firm belief in a recently and magnificently wisely created cosmos. It is the lack of this belief that will destroy science, not bring its furtherance.

Now, why make a song and dance about the facticity of Genesis 1 and 2? Well, if nothing else, it relates to the pursuit of truth: what does the Spirit seek to teach us in this passage? It appears that he seeks to teach us facts, and facts which are important for us to know; indeed, facts which are required to make any sense out of the passage. Yet I've read many authors who seem to be under the same influences as Pun who want to say that Genesis does not mean what it says, but that it means something else, which nevertheless has the same import for its theology as what it seems to say: this is reminiscent of a line from Little Britain: "yes, but, no, but, yes, but, no, but . . . " and little different from Aboriginal dreamtime stories: they didn’t happen, but we like to play with the thought that maybe, just maybe they somehow did: in dreamland.

An example of this is the pap taught at Moore, I think it was by a now past staff member (Perry Wiles), or even by Lord Archbishop Jensen (Matt 23: 6,7) himself, that Genesis serves as a polemic against other ANE cosmogonies. However, if not true, not accurate to events, then not really much of a polemic, more an empty clanging: and the hearers of the day would have gotten a chuckle out of it then, as now.

And that winds me around to the point of the issue for evangelistic and apologetic purposes. The dominant religious view today is naturalism. Clouser points out in the ‘Myth of Religious Neutrality’ that there is no religiously neutral position: everyone entertains basic beliefs, beliefs about what is ontologically independent. If not theistic, then by default, naturalist, in broad terms, and to begin taking Christ to those whose first premise does not admit him; we have to undo their first premise. Leaving aside all debate, if it were shown that the world is only 6000 years old (check a Jewish calendar for the accurate period), that life could not happen by any observable process, that differentiation of life and its interconnectedness belies stochastic process, then the first premise collapses in a puff of smoke. And the word of God comes in with a replacement.

Obscure? No, this is the very chain of reasoning that Paul took to pagans: Acts 17 contains the paradigmatic sermon: you start your evangelism on common ground to lead the person to sacred ground.

Does this 'work'. Well, I must say, starting from the real world it is as easy as anything to get to a spiritual discussion: naturalism is all around us and so easily brought up in conversation. I recall conversations as disparate as a discussion with a PhD biologist at work, with a Master's student looking at wetland ecology, with new agers who think all sorts of weird and wonderful things. It comes up with my children's teachers doing a unit on dinosaurs, or a unit on the solar system, and so on, and it is so easy, so gentle and leads the other to ask questions. Try brick batting the same people with the four spiritual laws, or Phil Jensen’s, 10 steps to Anglicanism, or whatever intellectual knuckle dusting he uses, and see the difference.

Then I compare a prayer letter from a 'creationist' organisation: it is replete with news of people turning to Christ because they can see they can trust the Bible, is at last congruent with the real world, and not an 'upper storey' fictionalised religious experience, it shows them a saviour in their here and now, it undoes the barrier of naturalism and the pretence that science underpins this worldview which starts with denial that God is there, let alone him having spoken. I look at Anglican media, and I see theory and technique and approaches and wishful thinking, I don't see the results that I see when the Bible is connected to people's questions: humbly, in detail, and in appreciation of a shared time-space event field.

Now how widespread is the worldview against God? One example I can give is the weekly Financial Review 'review' magazine. Every couple of weeks or so there is a major article, or a few, on an aspect of naturalism, materialism, unabashed Darwinism or another aspect of evolutionary dogma, which carries the not so implicit message that the world of the spirit is sub-rational, and to be spurned. This thinking is the warp and woof of our day. Equipping Christians to deal with it is vital to the progress of the gospel, in my estimation and experience. The Anglican Church equips us to succumb to materialism and stymie the gospel. Christians such as those in Creation Ministries International work hard to do the job the Anglicans have spurned.