Well, if it was as straight-forward as that we would have no trouble setting our defences to guard against idolatry, would we?
But for several generations of old covenant Israel the situation was very much as the title of this blog suggests. Baal worship was right there alongside them when they entered the Promised Land and remained in and about them through the failure of Israel to entirely rid the land of its Baal worshiping inhabitants. As God had foretold, their gods would be a snare to Israel.
The title Baal may be interpreted 'master' or 'husband'. The discovery of the Ras Shamra documents helped ascertain that, among other things, Baal was a nature deity. Yahweh was a 'master' and 'husband' to Israel and this lent to a somewhat innocent error of, at times, referring to Yahweh as 'Baal'. The consequence was a confusion of the worship of Yahweh with Baal. Even people and place names in Israel incorporated the name Baal, eg Esh-baal and Baal-Hazor. But then there were times of unadulterated Baal worship such as in the time of King Ahab of the Northern Kingdom.
There could hardly have been a more glorious and joyful occasion in the life of the nation Israel than the dedication of the temple of the Name of the Lord, the God of Israel, in the time of Solomon. The filling of the temple with the "glory of the Lord" must have been a truly awesome experience for those present. But there was also cause for sober contemplation as God later said to Solomon "But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now so imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and say, 'Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?' People will answer 'Because they have forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them - that is why he brought all this disaster on them.'" (2 Chron. 7:19-22) As we know, apostasy and later exile came the way of Israel.
However, we are a sophisticated generation of believers. We know the history of Israel and all the trouble it brought on itself. There is no way we would fall into the same trap as Israel of old, is there?
In writing to the Church in Collossae the Apostle Paul made it known that there is more to idolatry than worshiping graven images. Idolatry is giving ourselves over to our old nature which is contrary to the image of God. Paul goes on to say "... you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." (Col. 3:9b-10).
Now, we all must confess that we have slipped back into our old self sometimes. Gracious is our Lord to forgive those who see and feel their sin, confess and repent of this sin and seek His forgiveness. However, it can and does happen that a person, either through ignorance or being downright slow to be sanctified, maintains an idolatrous way of being.
Our old self trusted self to be wise for living - outside of the Word of God, it trusted the world when self felt lacking in wisdom. Our old self did not (and does not) trust God. As such, the old self is as much vulnerable to the seductions of the Evil One as Israel of the old covenant.
Darwinism has eerie and disturbing similarities to Baal. Both are nature deities. Both have their beginning in the thoughts of man. Both have their beginning in the thoughts of men who were not of Israel (Kingdom of God). Both are contrary to the expressed Word of God. Both have infiltrated the belief of Israel (old and new) leading to synchretism. Both lead to turning away from God - consider Israel (Num. 25:1-5), Ahab (I Kings 16:29-31), Manasseh (2 Kings 21:1-3), and in new covenant times, Charles Templeton, Richard Dawkins, Bishop John Shelby Spong and Howard van Till (the latter two having an unbiblical view of God).
This writer has a yearning for God to pour out His Holy Spirit on this land Australia, giving life and vitality to Israel as it exists as His Church in this land, opening the heart of a multitude of unbelievers to receive Jesus Christ as Creator, Lord and Saviour. This is the recurring prayer of this writer to the Lord our God and Father.
This writer should be excited about the 'great' mission of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney instituted by the Archbishop of Sydney and his plan of 'Connect 09' to usher in the produce of the mission. This writer cannot be excited but, instead, saddened and fearful. When the Archbishop of Sydney and many other priests around him have gone after something equivalent to Baal and have rejected the clear Word of God concerning His creative works, then I have cause for serious concern.
Indeed, the bizarre circumstance will arise in year 2009, the year of 'Connect 09', that those who are not of Israel will be holding a festival in honour of their god, Darwin. They will celebrate the 200 year anniversary of his birth and 150 year anniversary of his publishing the tenets of his belief. Will not the Archbishop of Sydney and many other priests around him also pay obeisance to the god of those who know not the one true God and their god who keeps so many out of the Kingdom of God?
The Lord our God, slow to anger, not willing for anyone to perish, will nonetheless act when His warnings are ignored. In the passage of time He acted on His warning to Solomon concerning Israel. As with then, He seems now to have acted in the United Kingdom with His Church (Israel). The Church there, for the most part, has forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers. He appears to have rejected the temple He consecrated for His Name and He has made it a byword and object of ridicule among all peoples.
My great hope for the life and advancement of Israel as expressed in the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney looks forlorn because it pursues the same course as Israel in the United Kingdom. I wish it were otherwise but Connect 09 looks doomed. Why should the Lord our God bless those who do not trust His Word. Why should He bless those who are one with the Evil One in saying "Did God Really Say?" in the beginning?
Oh, I wish it was otherwise. I look at Manasseh of old who worshiped more false gods than just Baal and yet I see that he turned back to the Lord and worshiped Him alone and had urged others to do likewise (2 Chron. 33:12-17). Oh, that it would be as the Lord said "... if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and forgive their sin and will heal their land." (2 Chron. 7:14-15).
Sam
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I can but only agree with your sentiments Sam.
It just seems to me that SAD is just not yet fit for the mission. What had been targetted at the outset some years ago is so huge a target that the anecdotal evidence of trivial child face-painting and handing out lollipos suggests we are lacking in vision. Add to that signs that some well meaning people aren't well enough prepared to engage on the level of atheist thinking suggests this event could be a big embarrassment to the Diocese.
Like you, this grieves me because God is so great that he deserves much better than we are prepared to offer.
Neil Moore
It seems to me there are more comparisons between Baal worship and Darwinism than you have mentioned. There were many craftsmen making money out image casting to aid people in their worship of Baal. Darwinism also allows people to earn money through documentaries, journals, books, and even research to demonstrate evolution is real. Large sums are spent on space exploration with evolution as the motivation for discovery.
Just think of the waste of billions of dollars on space exploration founded on evolutionary dogma eg search for signs of life in space.
Gwen
Thanks for your blog sam.
Along with others I have been sorrowed by the slide towards liberalism in sections of Sydney Anglicanism, particularly the leadership. These same people have scoffed at the idea they are on the slippery slope to unbelief, but it is easy to see.
Some of the AngloNasties seem to imagine compromising with evolution is something quite new when in reality other denominations & sections of the Anglican community worldwide took that sorry path long ago. Some here have pointed out the obvious end result of such compromised belief but the compromisers are either too arrogant, or too far gone to see what is happening.
But as to those who headed down that path long ago where are they now theologically?
•I think of the US Episcopalian minister who considers she can be both a Christian and a Muslim.
•Then there was the evangelist-Templeton-a powerful preacher-who slid slowly into compromise, and lost his faith totally. In his book he spelled out why he lost his faith and the points were straight down the line with what most theistic evolutionists believe. Some can live with dichotomy-at the same time able to hold two contradictory beliefs. Probably the majority are akin to Templeton, unable to do so, well aware that both cannot be true.
Considering his growing evolutionary convictions I can understand why Templeton walked away from Christian faith. If only an informed friend had been there to answer his questions, easy questions in reality. Sadly he died outside of saving faith.
Others unwilling to walk away, comfortable in the Christian culture, adopt a form of Godliness but deny its power, to paraphrase Scripture. We have all met them, claiming to be believers but in reality believing almost nothing.
Those who completely walk away appear to me to be the more honest. One said to me that if the straight forward prose of Genesis cannot be taken at face value then why should we take Ephesians 2:8,9 ‘For it is by grace you have been saved , through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-so that no one can boast,’ at face-value? Why indeed.
One of the AngloNasties said we can trust the NT because there were human witnesses present! God isn’t a good enough witness apparently!
•Then we have Dr Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, quoted as saying that it is time to end ‘the legal monopoly’ of English law, believing British Muslims should have the right to chose under which law they are judged. The lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
•I remember the letter I saw in a church paper from a very old minister who decried that not one of the many generations of his family were Christian. He sadly asked if perhaps his increasingly liberal view of Scripture had something to do with it. I am sure the answer to his question is a resounding yes! He once had Biblical faith however it paled away until he had nothing upon which to base ‘a sure and certain hope’ neither for himself or his family who have no hope at judgement, in their present condition.
Why can’t the compromisers see the obvious?
Thank you all for your comments and interest.
Neil, I too doubt the capacity of the Diocese to see fruit from the Connect 09 outreach. I read the Diocesan newspaper Southern Cross and see recurring questions marks from expected participants.
Gwen, I wonder whether at the end of all things there will be a count of the money and time wasted on the promoting and attempting to confirm Darwinism. I also fear the tally of lives that were lost to experimentation based on Darwinist doctrine.
Warwick, pride prevents many in the Diocese from seeing the truth. There is a very strong belief within the Diocese that there is all that is needed within the Diocese. That is why some have come onto this site for comment. Not because of the subject matter but because we have affronted the name of the Diocese by suggesting a heresy prevails within. That is it and no more!
They don't engage now, they just look on in contempt.
Sam
The apostasies that Warwick cited are the logical result of the church's appeasement of long ages and evolution.
Theistic evolutionists like the Moorites trying to win over atheistic evolutionists are like Chamberlain trying to win over Hitler. Chamberlain thought that he could appease Hitler by handing over Czechoslovakia. But when Hitler took that over, he also aquired the massive Skoda industrial works that strengthened him immensely (e.g. using Czech-made tanks).
Modern theistic evolutionists think that by conceding matters of real-world history and science to atheists, the atheists might be won over. But in reality, the compromiser have immensely strengthened the atheists' hands by turning such powerful armament over to them. And like Hitler, why should atheists make any concessions when the enemy is displaying such craven weakness?
In reality, the concessions are on the churchian side, in the sad apostasies Warwick mentioned. Another example is Howard Van Till, formerly of Calvin College. His college, in the slippery traditions of Academe, tolerated his departues from their official statement of faith, and scoffed at claims that Van Till was on a slippery slope to outright apostasy. But sure enough, after retirement, Van Till proclaimed his full apostasy from any belief in the all-powerful God of the Bible. An article, The New Theology says:
More than 350 years after the inquisition hounded Galileo over charges of heresy, physicist Howard Van Till, of Calvin College in Michigan, confronted a little inquisition of his own. Van Till roused a small but fervent pack of enemies at the conservative college with his book, "The Fourth Day," in which he argued that the stories of the Bible and science's account of evolution could both be true. His critics on the school's board of trustees had no interest in reconciling the religious account of creation with a naturalist explanation of how life and the universe have evolved over the ages. For years after the book's release in 1986, Van Till reported to a monthly interrogation where he struggled to reassure college officials that his scientific teachings fit within their creed.
Van Till's career survived the ordeal, but his Calvinist faith did not. Over the next two decades, he became the heretic his critics had suspected.
Maybe the inquisitors were right to see contradictions between his science and their religion, he thought. Their beliefs demanded a God of absolute power who intervened constantly in the history of life and in human affairs. But Van Till found that picture increasingly at odds with his conviction that everything from stars to starfish has evolved according to natural laws. The college inquiry, he says now, "shook me awake." ...
He rejected the idea of God as a supernatural being who took care to design every galaxy and blade of grass. The God he sought couldn't have designed everything at the outset, because the universe that science reveals is always unfolding, always changing. He began to think of God as a silent presence within nature, the source of the nameless awe he felt when studying the genesis of solar systems and the life of our endlessly fertile planet.
"If your faith requires supernaturalism, or a God who wields overpowering control over nature, then yes, evolution will challenge that," says Van Till, who took early retirement from Calvin College in 1999."The key is to correct your portrait of God," he says.
Things have gone a bit quiet for more than a week now. Are we all busy in our other ministries in the Name of our Lord?
Sam has mentioned the proposed celebrations next year by the world to commemorate Charles Darwin and his work.
Does anyone know the extent of these celebrations and what is the Biblical Creationist response to this?
Neil Moore
Sam, thanks for the article.
The irony of Christians fearing a repeat of the Gallileo incident is that Gallileo was overturning not the Bible, but the Church's adherance to the 'science' of the day: Aristotleanism. The church's criticism of G. was of his rejection of their compromise. So it is we who are in Gallileo's shoes, and the Sydney Anglican's who are the churchly persecutors of truly biblical thinking.
Eric, thanks for your comments. I agree with your comparison with Gallileo.
Sam
Post a Comment