Search This Blog

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Dear Dr Newman

This letter has just come into the office. I thought it expressed some great sentiments, so here 'tis, with slight edits (apologies to RG, the author).


Dear Dr Newman,

It was a great encouragement to hear you speak at Leura on Sunday. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear your subsequent talks, as prior business commitments prevented my attendance at them.

Today, so many Christians seem to be intimidated by science, or what is presented as science. But without coming to grips with what science is, and that much which is passed off as science is more philosophising in scientific language and terms than actual science.

Even further, there are those Christians who have been so overwhelmed by the prestige of science that they have gone beyond recognising it as a valid occupation of the mind, it being our work of coming to grips with the creation God has set us within. They have instead allowed the philosophising underlying all modern life, which is largely dressed up as science, to displace the word of God!

I am referring, of course, to the questions that cluster about origins, and the contest often and erroneously created between the words of holy writ and the current beliefs of scientists, popular apologists and public commentators; usually relayed by the press or television programs.

It quite distresses me that Christians have been swept up with the press of contemporary opinion, without due reflection, in my view, and adopted the idea of evolution as providing the means God used to create. It was therefore very pleasing to hear you clearly explain that science is about what is, not speculation on unique events such as our Lord’s miracles, or indeed his acts in creation; which must constitute his grand miracle.

The Holy Spirit, in the Bible, sets out our relationship to God between the two poles of creation and re-creation. To allow the speculative ideas of ‘evolution’ with their origin in pagan thinking, and mid 19th century ideas that sought to disconnect God and his creation, to intrude on the Biblical revelation as if to supplant it (which I must say, it has done in many minds) is grievous. It removes God and his loving brooding Spirit from the scene. After all, evolution is the doctrine of the universe making itself (Roms 1:25) and can only rely on myriads of errors and dead ends. It is riven with death and destruction. This is the very antithesis of the God who is love creating in love, to bring forth those in is image. After all, he said it is “very good” not “marred and troubled!”

The scriptures I reflect on in this connection are these.

I start of course with the creation account in Genesis and see no reason to depart from the straightforward reading of the text (also Ex 20:11), the tradition of the early church and the reformers, that God created in six days. The widespread view of the current church, that we can set aside the revelation with all sorts of strained interpretations shows more the influence of a world that starts its thinking without God than the church making a prophetic confrontation on the basis of God’s word with the deceiver. If there were a view apart from the direct meaning of the Scripture, the early interpreters would have relayed it, as even in their day there were pagan doctrines of a very old cosmos that had created itself.

Of course, Paul’s direct and indirect references to creation, and his reliance on this teaching in his instruction about the new creation always influlences my thinking, but the capstone is Hebrews 11:4, where we are told the means of God’s creation: his word, out of nothing and without intermediary processes (“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible”). Faith here is not what the world thinks of faith, as ‘wishful thinking’ but is reliance on God’s word for that information otherwise not available.

Once more, thank you for your work and your helpful sermon. I pray all the best for you.

8 comments:

sam drucker said...

Eric, could you inform us of your interpretation of what Dr (Barry, I presume) Newman said at Leura?

Sam

Critias said...

The Sydney Anglicans who claim to worship Christ, yet accept 'evolution' as the explanation of origins seem to ignore what Paul says in Romans 1:21 etc (For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.).

None of the work by evolutionists ends with any any recognition of God, but devotes what would pass for 'praise' to the creation.

Now, if I got to the end of any book by Dawkins, and he urged us to turn to Christ because evolution clearly indicated a creator, things would be different!

That the track record of evolutionary ideas is to promote and encourage godlessness must be prima facie evidence for its invalidity: I refer again to Paul's words above.

Eric said...

Sam, I wasn't there, but from what I know of Barry's views (as an ex-member of Christ Church St Ives) I'd be surprised if he contradicted the diocesean rejection of the Scriptures at Genesis 1ff.

Reading between the lines, I get it that he did his usual thing of being clear that science is limited and cannot undercut biblical miracles (such as the one at Cana), but he changes his tune when one gets to the creation, when he fades before modern materialism and goes into "but, but, but" mode.

Eric said...

I've heard of lots of people who have joined conversations leading to Christ that started with his being Creator, as the Bible tells, as opposed to evolution: people are riveted by that! On the other hand, how many conversations lead from the death and futility of evolution to the wonder of Christ?
The first is: the Bible is socked into the real world; the second is: the Bible is not really connected to our here and now. So which 'gospel' would you die for?

Anonymous said...

I claim to worship Christ, and attend a Sydney Anglican Church, but I'm not sure how I should interpret Genesis. It could have been 6 literal days if God wanted, and it could have been over a much longer period of time.

Does that still make me a Sydney Anglican Heretic?

John said...

Geoff,

The fact that you asked the question means that you aren't.

Given that the world says that the earth is billions of years old and that death came before man appeared on the scene, it's interesting that your minister hasn't brought the issue up before.

We all want to know where we came from and this is why the issue is of such high importance.

There is a mistaken belief that God can do whatever he wishes. I think this has arisen from the pagan belief that all things are a matter of his will, hence God could have taken a long time or a brief time to create. The Bible says that God is love, not will, power or holiness or whatever. Notwithstanding all the other arguments, if you love someone you rush towards them to meet them. It doesn't make sense that God, given that the creation is about us, not animals or plants, would stretch out the time of creation for billions of years to show that he cares for us and wants to involve us in a relationship with him.

Of course, that knee-jerk reponse can impose itself here i.e. God can very well do what he wants, but that just reduces God to a distant entity, not the caring God we see revealed in Jesus.

I really can't see how having billions of years before man's arrival shows the love and glory of God.

Critias said...

John, I'd go further in discussion with Geoff. Geoff, the choice about how long it took God to create is not ours. There's not a 'supermarket' of choices and we pick the colour we like. We have the word of God from Genesis 1, to Exodus 20, to a number of Psalms reaching up to Hebrews 4:3 and 11:3. Nowhere is there room for anything but 6 normal days. If one wants to insist otherwise, there must be evidence: in the text, across the entire scriptures and in church history. I've not seen or heard any. None from any of the Sydney Anglican supporters who've come into the discussion, and none I've seen published elsewhere, except, of course, where there is tendentious bending of language to conform to the dictates of a cosmogony which sets at with denial of God as its basis.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the choice not being ours. What God's word says is what we must obey.

I guess the difference in our point of views is, you believe Peter Jensen (and many other Sydney Anglicans...though not all of them) is a heretic because of his views on Genesis. If 6 day creationism is right, I still don't think it makes him a heretic, I think it just makes him wrong.

I think Peter and the diocese on the whole are very faithful to the word of God, and I don't think they succumb to the ways of the world. Maybe they have been fooled by it in this case (I'm not sure), but I don't think it warrants them being labelled heretics.

PS. I'm not saying it doesn't matter whether we are right or wrong on biblical things. It is very important.


Do you guys all live in Sydney? Wanna grab a drink one day?

Cheers

Geoff