|The following item was originally posted in September 2008. I have added it to my blog recycling program. Because I have new readers of The GeoChristian, I will occasionally go back and re-use some of my favorite blog entries.|
Atheists, and other opponents of the truthfulness of Christianity, often equate Christianity with superstition.
Here’s a quote from “Look Who’s Irrational Now” by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway in the Wall Street Journal:
The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us.
“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn’t.
Perhaps denial of the greatest truth opens one up to a myriad of falsehoods.
Grace and Peace
From the NASA Image of the Day Gallery: Water Detected at High Latitudes on the Moon —
From the decription:
NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper, an instrument on the Indian Space Research Organization’s Chandrayaan-1 mission, took this image of Earth’s moon. It is a three-color composite of reflected near-infrared radiation from the sun, and illustrates the extent to which different materials are mapped across the side of the moon that faces Earth.
Small amounts of water were detected on the surface of the moon at various locations. This image illustrates their distribution at high latitudes toward the poles.
Blue shows the signature of water, green shows the brightness of the surface as measured by reflected infrared radiation from the sun and red shows an iron-bearing mineral called pyroxene.
As of now, there are gaps in the imagery coverage; hence the black stripes.
Grace and Peace
The family took a hike in Deer Creek Canyon, at the southwest corner of the Denver metro area last week. This was before it turned cold and rainy/snowy. The trail has a mixture of grassland, scrub brush, and forest (Ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, scrub oak, aspen, and others).
Click on images to enlarge.
Grace and Peace
|This is part of my series on theologically conservative Christians who advocate some form of old-Earth creationism, which is the idea that there is no Biblical reason to question that the Earth is billions of years old. Most of those I am highlighting in this series would hold to some sort of Biblical inerrancy.|
In the early part of the twentieth century, there were few theologically conservative Christian scholars who held to young-Earth creationism, with its insistence that the Bible requires an Earth that is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. A prominent example of a Christian leader who advocated an old Earth was William Jennings Bryan, perhaps most famous today for his part in the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial.” Bryan was firmly opposed to biological evolution, but had no problem with the concept that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old. Bryan was not a Biblical scholar—he was a politician and activist, having run for president of the United States on the Democratic ticket three times—but his views on Genesis were consistent with the best of Evangelical scholarship of the time.
Here is a court transcript of an exchange between Clarence Darrow (ACLU) and William Jennings Bryan:
Clarence Darrow [D]: ‘Mr Bryan, could you tell me how old the Earth is?’
William Jennings Bryan [B]: ‘No, sir, I couldn’t.’
[D]: ‘Could you come anywhere near it?’
[B]: ‘I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.’
[D]: ‘Does the statement, “The morning and the evening were the first day,” and “The morning and the evening were the second day,” mean anything to you?’
[B]: ‘I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.’
[D]: ‘You do not?’
[D]: ‘Then, when the Bible said, for instance, “and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,” that does not necessarily mean twenty-four-hours?’
[B]: ‘I do not think it necessarily does.’ ‘I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.’
[D]: ‘And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time.’
[B]: ‘They might have been.’
[D]: ‘The creation might have been going on for a very long time?’
[B]: ‘It might have continued for millions of years.’
Source: Reasons to Believe
Grace and Peace
My previous post was about pastors responding to a question about evolution. One of the readers’ comments was from a Christian paleontologist.
Here’s the comment (emphasis added by me):
You guys rule — it was a joy to read through these answers from such different Christian traditions and find such humility and realism regarding a subject that is the source of so much wholly unwarranted conflict. This quote can maybe stand as representative: “I am a pastor and a theologian, not a biologist. As such, I could not debate the individual claims of natural science on the merits of each, because I lack the resources to do so.” If only every Christian had that kind of humility.
OK, cards on the table: I am an evangelical Christian who takes the bible seriously. I am a frequent worship leader at my church, and have been a frequent preacher in previous churches. I have in the past described myself as a “fundamentalist” — not a term I would ever use now, as it has connotation that it didn’t have 20 years ago, at least here in the UK, but it’s not so much that my beliefs have changed as that my understanding of that label has “shifted”. Anyway, that’s who I am.
And with my other hat on, I am a publishing palaeontologist, specialising in the sauropod dinosaurs. (My publications are available from the site linked above; my most recent paper is on the generic separation of the African dinosaur “Brachiosaurus” brancai and the American type species Brachiosaurus altithorax).
As you can imagine, I have Christian friends who think I am sell-out for working in the field of evolutionary biology, and scientist friends who think I am a deluded idiot to be Christian; but I am far from alone — off the top of my head I could name another half-dozen practicing Christians within dinosaur palaeontology alone. Why do we so rarely hear from them? For a very sad reason: because the atmosphere in vertebrate palaeontology towards Christianity is poisonous, thanks to the efforts of creationists on one side and Dawkinsites on the other. If I could get just one message to the world’s creationists, it would be this: please have the same humility as Joe Boysel, and recognise that your knowledge of the scripture does NOT entitle you to make pronouncements on science. No, not even if you’ve read a couple of Duane T. Gish paperbacks. Would you try to tell a lawyer his job after reading Honest Bob’s Big Book Of Law? No? Then please have the humility not to try to tell palaeontologists their job from a position of similar ignorance. All you’re achieving is poisoning the well for those of us who would otherwise be in a position to engage with atheists and agnostics in our science.
Sorry if that ended up sounding a bit ranty. Let me finish by returning to my main point, which was how nice it was NOT to hear that kind of uniformed dogmatism from the Gangstas. Thank you, guys.
Grace and Peace
The Internet Monk by Michael Spencer is one of the few blogs I read almost every day. Today he had a post in his “Liturgical Gangstas” series on “That Evolution Question.” He posed the following question to his panel of pastors:
A pre-med college student in your congregation comes to you and says “I’ve been learning about evolution at school, and I can’t recall the subject ever being discussed or talked about here at church. I’ve never really asked if there was a conflict between evolution and being a Christian. Can I believe what I’m being taught, or do I have to oppose it because I am a Christian?
Here are a few excerpts from the pastors’ responses:
But, here is what is important for you to know. As Christians we need to believe and proclaim that God has created the heavens and the earth. That is what our creed says, “We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.” We need to believe that there was a time when there was nothing but God, and that God chose to create. And, we need to believe that God continues to work within his Creation in a very active way.
But […] it is also important for you to know that there were strong discussions between the Church Fathers over how the creation was accomplished and over whether the first few chapters of Genesis were to be taken as literal or as an allegory or as a poem. You are not required to believe in a particular process for how the Creation was accomplished.
Matthew Johnson/United Methodist:
I would tell that pre-med student this story in order to say, none of us, science or faith, has all the answers. I’m fine being skeptical of some aspects of evolution and find my acceptance of other aspects in no way conflicts with my complete and utter belief and experience with the Triune Creator who has fully revealed himself in Jesus Christ, crucified and resurrected. I hope that our church wouldn’t be an obstacle to honest pursuit of truth either theologically or scientifically. I also hope that the student would find an avenue within the church to ask questions, discuss, and grow as a disciple of Jesus Christ in his or her pursuit of truth no matter what.
Eventually, I would urge my parishioner not to lose too much sleep over the matter. Scripture does not seek to provide an historical or biological account of human origins; rather it provides a theological framework for understanding humanity (and the universe) as the handiwork of God.
Alan Creech/Roman Catholic:
The issue begins when philosophical leaps are made by “scientists” and conclusions are drawn, e.g., life has evolved in this way; therefore it was all by chance; therefore, there cannot be a God. Uh, no. The scientist who makes such a leap has ceased to be a scientist and is making statements he cannot make using the scientific method. So, don’t trust that kind of thing if that’s what you’re being taught. Our faith should trump these kinds of ill-drawn conclusions.
One can be a faithful, committed Christian and believe that evolution is very likely scientifically true. You can be a Christian and believe that God perhaps intentionally set the path of life on its evolutionary path, that He intentionally drew human beings out of the line, breathed His Spirit into us and made us in His Image. Some people call this “theistic evolution” – as opposed to “naturalistic evolution,” which I described in the previous paragraph. It’s not about a huge cosmic accident, but rather, about God doing exactly what He wanted how He wanted to do it. Believing this does not necessarily need to conflict with a belief in God, Jesus or even in the Truth of the Bible as God’s Word.
Wyman Richardson/Southern Baptist:
I’m going to have to begin my answer with a bit of a confessional preface: I’ve kind of instinctively distanced myself from the issue of evolution a bit because (a) I’m often embarrased by my fellow pastors who try to speak on the subject as if they’re scientists, (b) I’m often irritated by the mindless fundamentalism of pro-evolution advocates and, (c) I’ve heard and read so many conflicting variations from scientists and non-scientists alike on the philosophical and theological implications of evolution that I’ve put it on the backburner a bit instead of jumping into what seems to be a hopelessly muddled morass of shouting.
I don’t say that’s noble of me, just that that’s the truth.
As for the question itself, though, I think I would say this: “I believe that all truth is God’s truth and that, at heart, science does not conflict with what Scripture asserts.
[On vacation — too bad. I suspect he is a young-Earth creationist, so we would have gotten a different perspective]
Eric Landry, PCA Presbyterian:
When I was a freshman in high school, I got my name and picture splashed across the front page of the local newspaper for debating my biology teacher. The school district had a policy in those days to allow students to skip portions of classes that dealt with objectionable material (like evolution, I guess) but I stayed and made a nuisance of myself, which generated a bit of news in our small town. The teacher wrote me a very nice note at the end of the school year and said that she hoped her children would have the same dedication to their beliefs that I had to mine. I hope she was being facetious because I never want my children to be as arrogant and simplistic as I proved myself to be in her class. It would have been far better for me to have played the part of a student and learned what my teacher had to say, asked questions in a respectful manner, and not been frightened by what I heard.
By the time I saw this, there were over 100 comments, and it is unlikely that I’ll take the time to plow through the whole thing.
Grace and Peace
|There has been some controversy regarding this post. I’ll do my best to clear up any misunderstandings here at the beginning:
I had no intention of misrepresenting (either here or in my comments on that blog) what anyone said. In a few instances, my wording could have been a little more precise.
Many young-Earth creationists have zero tolerance for opposing viewpoints within the church. I’ve been involved in a discussion on a young-Earth creationist (YEC) blog where I’ve been accused of heresy (or at least setting the stage for apostasy) for accepting the concept that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. One commenter (Dan) stated:
“In my FIRST post I asserted in effect that for almost 18 centuries NO theologian who so much as professed the name of Christ (including therefore even the various heretics) held any form of old-earthism. Anyone may step up to cite a counterexample, but I’m not holding my breath. Kevin, how do you feel about teaching a doctrine that (among Christians) appeared completely out of the ether over 17 centuries after Christ? From that point of view, if THIS isn’t heresy, nothing deserves that name.”
This is a common tactic of young-Earth creationists, and here is how I responded:
I agree that some sort of YEC was the almost universal view of theologians until the 18th century. Young and Stearley have documented this in their excellent old-Earth book The Bible, Rocks, and Time. Among the church fathers, there were men like Origen and Augustine who held that the days were symbolic or figurative, but there is no indication that these fathers imagined a universe billions of years old.
But then again, geocentrism was the almost universal position of the church throughout this period as well. When the overwhelming evidence for heliocentrism (sun-centered solar system) was presented, there was resistance within the church (and within science). Eventually, the church took a closer look at what the Scriptures actually said, and realized that the scriptures did not teach geocentrism after all.
Regarding heliocentrism, then, one could have said, “if THIS isn’t heresy, nothing deserves that name.”
One could even take your approach to something like the doctrine of justification: saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This doctrine was absent from the church for a long time, and was never stated in those words until the 16th century. The Roman church took your approach rather than taking a closer look to see what the Scriptures themselves said on the topic.
The Copernican Revolution required a closer examination of the Scriptures to determine what the Bible really said and didn’t say about nature. The Protestant Reformation took a closer look at the Scriptures, to see what they really said and didn’t say. I take the same approach to the age of the Earth and the extent of Noah’s flood.
If all you read is YEC writings on the topic, you will be convinced that the Bible requires a young Earth and planetary flood. There are a large number of conservative, orthodox Old Testament scholars, however, who hold to an old Earth. They do this because they have taken a closer look at the text than the young-Earthers have, and have come to the conclusion that it does not require a young Earth.
There are plenty of young-Earth creationists out there who believe that one cannot be a Christian if one believes in an old Earth. My response to that is:
I believe in:
- A real creation by the triune God.
- A real Adam in a real garden
- A real fall into sin with real consequences
- In Jesus Christ as the only solution for our sin
Where’s the heresy? Where’s the apostasy?
I also believe that:
- The opening chapters of Genesis were not intended to be an outline of the history of the universe, and do not require a young Earth.
- The Bible does not say that the flood covered the entire planet, nor did it create the geological column.
I’ll write more on these points soon.
Grace and Peace
From today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day: The Butterfly Nebula from Upgraded Hubble.
Grace and Peace
I’m rather embarrassed by the reaction many conservatives have had to the upcoming Obama address to students in America’s schools. The topic will be the importance of education, and giving a speech like this is a very fitting role for the president of the United States.
Read pastor John Piper’s perspective:
I am stunned at the outcry against the President of the United States speaking to the youth of this nation about the importance of education.
I am embarrassed by the governor of my home state saying, that the president’s plan to address them is “disruptive . . . uninvited . . . and number three . . . I don’t think he needs to force it upon the nation’s school children.”
This speech seems, for me, to be an answer to a prayer that I have prayed for the president repeatedly.
Father, the condition of our schools and families is so broken that nothing seems to be working, especially for the poor in our urban centers. Help our president to have the courage to use his amazing place of influence to speak into this situation in such a way that boys and girls would take their studies seriously and put school above sport and homework above hiphop and graduation above gangs.
O, Lord, create a culture where it is not cool to fail. Give our President the courage to call all children, especially ones who feel hopeless about academic work, to fight for knowledge the way gangs fight for turf.
And as the President plans his speech, help him to feel as helpless as he really is to meet the greatest needs of the children, so that he turns to Jesus who alone has the answer for the ruin and the wrongs of our cities. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
I hope my daughter hears the speech.
From Desiring God: I Hope My Daughter Hears the President’s Speech
Grace and Peace
I’m averaging a little over 300 visitors per day at The GeoChristian, and am curious to know more of the make up of my audience. This is my first attempt at polling on my blog; I think you can vote only one time.
I am still seeking employment as either a geoscience or geospatial professional (or both combined in one position). Click here for a brief resume, or go to Ten reasons why you should hire me.
“You cannot believe the Bible because it is full of contradictions.”
I’ve heard this stated many times; you have probably heard it as well. You may be one who uses “Bible contradictions” as one of the reasons for rejecting Christianity, or you may be a Christian who struggles because there are things in the Bible that seem to be inconsistent.
There are various kinds of “Bible contradictions.”
- Internal factual — What were the names of the twelve apostles? How many angels were at the tomb when Jesus rose from the dead?
- External factual — Was Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar? How could Quirinius have been governor of Syria when Jesus was born?
- Doctrinal — Is there a doctrinal contradiction between Paul (save by faith) and James (saved by works)?
- Ethical — Was it right for David and his men to eat bread consecrated to the Lord? What about the conquest of the promised land under Joshua?
Many of these are easy to deal with and have obvious answers. Most of the rest have plausible answers as well. There are a few that I really don’t know the answer to, but that does not mean there is no answer. These sorts of things really don’t bother me much any more.
THE CALLING OF THE DISCIPLES
Here is my story of how a “Bible contradiction” challenged my faith, and how I came through that experience with a much greater confidence in the Bible as the reliable and trustworthy Word of God.
I came to a full understanding of the Gospel (good news) through the ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ when I was an undergraduate student. The basic message that I came to embrace was that humans have broken their relationship with God throught their sin, that Christ (fully God and fully man) died on the cross as our substitute, and that by faith in Christ we take on his righteousness. Campus Crusade placed a strong emphasis on the truthfulness—or inerrancy—of the Scriptures. Shortly after this, I started attending an independent, fundamentalist Bible church, in which the inerrancy of Scriptures was a central doctrine.
A year or two later I was at home in the church I grew up in; this was probably in about 1982 or 1983. It is not that the gospel was never preached there; it was embedded in the liturgy and I know the senior pastor at this time believed this good news with all his heart. If I did not understand the Gospel before, it was because of the hardness of my own heart, not because it was not proclaimed.
On this particular Sunday, however, the younger associate pastor was preaching. The topic was “The calling of the disciples,” and the pastor compared the account in John with that in Matthew. In John 1, Peter, Andrew, and others were introduced to Jesus through the ministry of John the Baptist, who was baptizing people along the Jordan River:
The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, “What are you seeking?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). (John 1:35-42, ESV)
In Matthew 4, the calling of the disciples occurred on the shore of the Sea of Galilee where Peter, Andrew, John, and James were working as fishermen, with no mention of the ministry of John the Baptist:
While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him. (Matthew 4:18-22, ESV).
The pastor read these passages, and then commented, “These two passages contradict each other; we don’t know which of them gives the true story.” I don’t remember the rest of the sermon, but I was devastated. After church, I went into my bedroom, closed the door, and wept. The Bible was the foundation of my Christian faith, but what kind of foundation would there be if I didn’t know whether or not what I read was true? I agonized in prayer, read the passages again, and prayed more earnestly.
As I read the passages more closely, I noticed something important. This was not an either-or situation. The liberal pastor (by “liberal” I mean theologically liberal) presented it as a contradiction: that either Matthew gave the true story or John (or I suppose “none of the above” would have been an option to him as well). But there was another possibility that the pastor hadn’t seen: why couldn’t both passages be true? Why couldn’t these be two separate events?
As I read the texts more closely, it became more apparent that I had found a very natural solution to this apparent contradiction. What happened was that the disciples were first introduced to Jesus through the ministry of John the Baptist. John said, “Look, the Lamb of God,” and Peter and his friends went and spent some time with Jesus. Nowhere in John does it say that the disciples left everything at this point to follow Christ. Some time later these men were back in Galilee working as fishermen. Jesus walked up and said, “Come follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” At this point they left their homes and work and followed Christ. There is absolutely nothing in the passages that causes any problem with this interpretation.
At this revelation, my anguish was replaced with joyful exuberation. My faith had been challenged, and by God’s grace my faith had been strengthened.
That evening, I was back in my college town, and went to the Sunday evening service at my church there (Grace Bible Church, Bozeman, Montana). The message from the pastor that evening was on the topic of the calling of the disciples! The pastor addressed the same “contradiction” and presented the same conclusion that I had come up with through tears and prayer. This was a mighty confirmation to me that I hadn’t just made this all up, that the Bible was reliable, and that my faith rested on a solid foundation.
CONCLUSION — HOW I DEAL WITH “CONTRADICTIONS”
This experience greatly strengthened my confidence in the trustworthiness and accuracy of the text of the Bible. There have been other challenging passages, but I have been able to work through most of them. Most of these have come through my daily reading of Scriptures rather than from being confronted with contradictions from skeptics.
Now when I am faced with what appears to be a contradiction in the Bible, I approach the problem with the following principles in mind:
- My starting assumption is that I assume the Bible is right. This is not because I have a blind faith, but because my experience has been that once I understand the text, culture, and historical context, the Bible turns out to be accurate.
- Another principle is to assume that the authors of the Bible knew their world, with its culture and history. Skeptics often assume that the authors of the Bible were idiots. They weren’t. I have to assume, for example, that when John wrote about the calling of the disciples, he not only remembered his experiences, but he was also aware of what had already been recorded about this event in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which were written before John wrote his gospel. When John wrote about the disciples meeting Jesus through John the Baptist, we have to assume that he was also aware of the calling of the disciples at the Sea of Galilee, because he was there!
- We don’t know everything. For example, skeptics have charged that the lengths of reigns of the kings of Judah in the Old Testament make no sense. This went unanswered for quite some time. It has been shown, however, that the numbers make perfect sense once one considers that sons often served as co-regents with their fathers, so there was often considerable overlap in their listed reigns. The concept of co-regency was common in the ancient Near East, and there are precedents for counting years in reigns simultaneously. It is likely that a number of remaining difficulties in Old Testament chronology and archeology fall into this “we don’t know everything” category.
- We cannot force our cultural concept of what is acceptable in narrative literature to match that of Biblical cultures. For example, there are a number of places in the Old Testament where stories are arranged in a non-chronological order. If you try to read Jeremiah, for example, expecting a chronological story of Jeremiah’s life and teaching, you will be hopelessly confused. The book of Jeremiah is arranged topically, with chronology being a secondary consideration. Likewise, none of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) is chronological, as far as we know. This is a source of many apparent contradictions that are not contradictions at all. Did Jesus cleanse the temple at the beginning of his ministry (John 2) or in his final week (Mark 11) (or did he do it twice?). Biblical writers felt free to rearrange events to make certain points. There was nothing dishonest about this, and only our own cultural biases would cause one to call this a contradiction.
- Differences in wording are not contradictions. Did Jesus say, “Blessed are you who are poor” (Luke 6) or did he say “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt 5)? Either he said both on different occasions, or the writer paraphrased a bit.
- Parallel passages are often written in different literary genres. Genesis 1 and 2 are not in the least bit contradictory. Either one of these or both of them are non-chronological, but that does not make them contradictory. A similar example would be Judges 4 and 5, which records the victory of Deborah. Chapter 4 records a narrative of this event, and chapter 5 records the battle in poetic form. One could find all sorts of apparent contradictions between the two chapters, but there are no real contradictions. Poetry is poetry, and narrative is narrative.
These are a few things that help me as I wrestle with the issues of apparent contradictions in the Bible. With application of these principles, most apparent contradictions are easily taken care of. None of the remaining issues are unsolvable.
CONCLUSION #2 — THE ELCA
The sermon by the liberal pastor which pointed out the “contradiction” between John 1 and Matthew 4 was one of the most influential sermons I have heard in my life, though not in a way that the pastor intended. This sermon was preached in a church that was part of the American Lutheran Church (ALC), which was one of the denominations that merged to form today’s Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). The ALC officially stated belief in Biblical inerrancy, but that was widely ignored. The present apostasy of much of the ELCA—the recent homosexual ordination vote is just one expression of this—had its roots in abandoning Biblical authority decades ago.
This saddens me deeply. First, it saddens me because I grew up in the ALC/ELCA and see that much that was good has been lost. I would love to see the ELCA return to its Biblical Lutheran roots. Second, it saddens me because as an Evangelical, an important part of my heritage includes Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. In fact, unlike most in my denomination, I identify more closely with Luther than with Calvin.
A Lutheran’s perspective on the ELCA’s slide away from Biblical Christianity: How the ELCA Left the Great Tradition for Liberal Protestantism (from Christianity Today). This article points out how the liberals built certain things into the ELCA at its inception, such as a quota system for voting delegates, that would ensure the triumph of their un-Biblical agenda.
Grace and Peace
As of today, we have four teenagers in the family. Our youngest turned 13 today; our oldest will be 20 in six weeks.
Having teenagers in the house has been a blessing in many ways. I have enjoyed the maturing relationships I have with each one, and seeing them grow in Christ.
Grace and Peace
From ThinkGeek.com: Flavorless Nihilist Mints.
Sigh. Life is without meaning. It is bleak, empty, and anything we assign value to is completely false. We could say, for instance, that these Nihilist Mints symbolize that blankness of meaning, but then that would be a contradiction as we would be saying that Nihilist Mints mean something. They don’t. They are so bleak, they don’t even have flavor. Nihilist Mints are flavorless, just like life. Epic sigh.
“This life is not godliness, but growth in godliness; not health, but healing; not being, but becoming; not rest, but exercise. We are not now what we shall be, but we are on the way; the process is not yet finished, but it has begun; this is not the goal, but it is [the] road; at present all does not gleam and glitter, but everything is being purified.” — Martin Luther
Grace and peace