Heroes of Faith (or "On this Rock I Will Build My Church")

Sam Drucker recently drew attention to the decline in belief in the chronology of the Bible. Earlier, I had cited extracts from "The Great Turning Point" written by Terry Mortenson and published by Master Books in 2004. Sam cites other sources for his case but Terry Mortenson has more to say and I would like to bring it to readers' attention here.

In concluding his book, Terry Mortenson attempts to offer explanation for the sudden emergence and demise in the 19th Century of the Scriptural Geologists (those with geological training, experience or interest and compulsion to defend the Word of God). Various helpful insights are provided but for my exercise I take up part of what Mortenson says from page 235.

"Finally, in the period 1820 to 1845, the scriptural geologists were writing toward the end of a debate among geologists about the physical effects of Noah's flood. Some, such as Hutton and Lyell,were saying that it was geologically irrelevant. Other such as Cuvier, Buckland, Sedgwick, and Jameson, were insisting for a time that the Flood was responsible for at least some of the geological phenomena. The scriptural geologists' most intense reaction came in the wake of recantation (of belief in the Flood) of Buckland, Sedgwick, and others, and the publication of Lyell's "Principles of Geology".

In this context the scriptural geologists felt compelled to write. They believed that the old earth theories and the resulting reinterpretations of Scripture would have long-term catastrophic effects on the theological and spiritual health of the Church and her evangelistic mission and subsequently on the social and political life of the nation. But this was precisely because they believed these issues were related to a person's response to the inspired and infallible Word of God. As [Henry] Cole put it:

'Many reverend geologists, however, would evince their reverence for the divine Revelation by making a distinction between its historical and its moral portions; and maintaining, that the latter only is inspired and absolute Truth; but the former is not so; and therefore is open to any latitude of philosophic and scientific interpretation, modification and denial! ... According to these impious and infidel modifiers and separators, there is not one-third of the Word of God that is inspired; for not more, nor perhaps so much, of that Word, is occupied in abstract moral revelation, instruction and precept. The other two-thirds, therefore, are open to any scientific modification and interpretation; or (if scientifically required) to a total denial! It may, however, be safely asserted, that whoever professedly, before men, disbelieves the inspiration of any part of Revelation, disbelieves, in the sight of God, its inspiration altogether. If such principles were permitted of the most High to proceed to their ultimate drifts and tendencies, how long would they be sweeping all faith in revealed and inspired veracity from the face of the earth? ... What the consequences of such things must be to a revelation-possessing land, time will rapidly and awfully unfold in its opening pages of national skepticism, infidelity, and apostacy [sic], and of God's righteous vengeance on same!' (Popular Geology Subversive of Divine Revelation, London: J. Hatchard and Son, 1834)

It would appear that subsequent developments in the church and society in Britain (and other so-called Christian lands of Europe and North America) over the last 170 years has confirmed the scriptural geologists worst fears.

So it was the undermining of Scriptures, far more than the undermining of the political and social status quo or their own personal positions in society, that was their shared concern. Also, as scientific knowledge was rapidly expanding and leading geologists and other scientists were claiming massive evidence in favour of an old earth, the scriptural geologists felt compelled to defend the traditional interpretation of Genesis, in part by attempting to show that much of what was being claimed as "evidences" of an old earth were really theory-laden inferences from the geological facts, with the theory being rooted in anti-biblical philosophical assumptions.

Finally, the scriptural geologists and their opponents also collided in their views on the very nature of geology. It was not an experimental science, such as chemistry or physics, seeking to discover how the present creation operates, but a science concerned with the historical question of origins. All of the scriptural geologists recognized, and some of their opponents attempted to articulate, this special characteristic of geological science. But the ambiguous definition of this historical nature of geology at its early stage of development added to the confusion and hindered the serious consideration of the best arguments of the scriptural geologists by the geological opponents. As the 19th century progressed, the question of origins (astronomical, geological, and biological) was moving rapidly away from assumptions rooted in Christianity to a semi-deistic, agnostic or atheistic framework. The rear-guard action of the scriptural geologists was too little and too late to stop this cultural shift in the world view."

With these men we stand. They did not fight in vain. More later.

Neil Moore