More Moore, Collins, Carter, and Warren

With [Russell] Moore nodding along, [Francis] Collins held up a basic, over-the-counter cloth square, “This is not a political statement,” he asserted. “This is not an invasion of your personal freedom…This is a life-saving medical device.”

Rick [loves robes and women pastors] Warren – “Warren and Collins spent their interview jointly lamenting the unlovingness of Christians who question the efficacy of masks, specifically framing it as a matter of obedience to Jesus. ‘Wearing a mask is the great commandment: love your neighbor as yourself,’ the best-selling author of ‘The Purpose-Driven Life’ declared, before going on to specifically argue that religious leaders have an obligation to convince religious people to accept the government’s narratives about Covid.”

It was clear to me that many among the church leaders I once listened to were actually milquetoast, wishy-washy men who have sullied their Christian worldviews with syncretistic beliefs from the religions of secular humanism and Wokeism.

The Church has had many examples of times where the “experts” in theology – the Christian intelligentsia – have been blind to their own syncretism, complacency, and sin, and where God has used humble people from humble origins to shame their pride and so-called wisdom.

You need to read this amazing piece of reporting that details how Big Eva shamed Christians for asking pandemic questions at the behest of former NIH director Francis Collins, by Joel Abbott

“Never ceases to amaze me that Jesus began his church by entrusting it to a band of nobodies, featuring salt-of-the-earth men who were unlettered & untrained. He passed over the gatekeepers, elites, thought-leaders, and bureaucrats.

“The gospel needs no worldly help to advance.” https://twitter.com/ostrachan/status/1488555691581259778 -- Owen Strachan

Some other things you might like to read:

• The Tragedy of Francis Collins’s Model for Science-Faith Integration
• Evangelicals: Who Are The Good & The Bad?
• I’m going to regret writing this
• How The Federal Government Used Evangelical Leaders To Spread COVID Propaganda To Churches
• Fault Lines by Voddie Baucham

“Lord, what a thoughtless wretch was I
To mourn, and murmur, and repine,
To see the wicked placed on high,
In pride and robes of honour shine!”

A poll and an opinion

A couple of articles I cannot recommend as sound, but are nevertheless interesting.

• Why some younger evangelicals are leaving the faith -- “Along with a decline in white evangelicalism, the data indicates a stabilized increase in the number of those who no longer identify as religious at all.”

The author states that the material was gathered from over 75 interviews he conducted between 2010 and 2018 with those dissatisfied with their evangelical faith. I was struck by the fact that the interviewees often complained about white evangelicals’ allegiance to politics. Yet it was often their own political views rather than theological ones that influenced their exit from evangelicalism.

• ‘I dare you to deny me Communion.’ What has happened to Catholicism in America? -- “Biden has scandalized and confused many faithful by continuing to receive Holy Communion while supporting abortion, which the church deems gravely sinful.”

I have numerous and significant disagreements with the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic (so-called) Church. Nevertheless, this opinion piece makes a valid point about their need to stand on what they believe.

Letter to dog gets the job done

Evangelical Christians are the world's worst about meeting deadlines. I would occasionally use a Roman Catholic writer for an article that fit his abilities well. I would also use women as writers. But evangelical men were the world's worst at meeting deadlines. But I found the secret. If they were long overdue I would write to their wife. It never failed. No wife ever let me down. It seems they were very happy to enter into any conspiracy against their lawful spouse. The only time I ran into trouble was with one bachelor. He was notorious for not meeting deadlines and not submitting things at all. But I was on name terms with his dog. His dog was my friend, a German Shepherd. So I wrote to his dog. The man's name was Reynolds and his dog's name predictably was Joseph. So I got a huge post card and wrote on it with very large letters "To Joseph Reynolds, Esquire." I said to the dog, "Please remind your master that he is four months overdue." This guy sent the material the next week.

The enlightening story above comes from an interview with J. D. Douglas in the Reformation & Revival Journal (Volume 12, No 4, Fall 2003, pp. 141-168) James Dixon Douglas (1922-2003) was a long time editor, for example, editor of Christianity Today from 1961 to 1983, and chief editor overseeing The New Bible Dictionary. Of him, David F. Wright said at his memorial service that he was "strikingly proud of his lowly origins. These years left him with not only an addiction to fish and chips but also an aversion from high-falutin, from self-important conceit and empty show. He became a master at puncturing pretentiousness, at pricking inflated balloons, often playfully but never cruelly."

Science and Faith, Science or Faith?

A friend asked if I might comment on Peter Enns’ blog post concerning Episcopalians on Science and Faith. In it Enns highly recommends the Episcopalian view – as supported in a resolution of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church “Affirming the Compatibility of Science and the Christian Faith” – and suggests that evangelicals might be able to learn something from them. No doubt evangelicals, as all of us, need to learn something, but we might first wonder just who they are. The Episcopalians we know, but who are the evangelicals?

Michael Luo tells us that even Evangelicals Debate the Meaning of 'Evangelical'. According to the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals,* “The term 'Evangelicalism' is a wide-reaching definitional 'canopy' that covers a diverse number of Protestant traditions, denominations, organizations, and churches.” They apply it to “the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” Merriam-Webster gives one meaning of evangelical as "Protestant" while another is "of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism." Now that is a wide enough range to have little clarity! Considering the context of Enns' piece, I have to think that what he refers to as evangelical leans toward fundamentalism, at least holding the classic fundamentals of the faith and certainly inerrancy of the Bible. Wikipedia claims, “Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.”

Peter Enns is a religious instructor on the liberal end of the theological spectrum. He is an Affiliate Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University in St. Davids, PA.** Enns is author of The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, a book that "offers a way forward by explaining how this tension is caused not by the discoveries of science but by false expectations about the biblical texts" and "helps readers reconcile the teachings of the Bible with the widely held evolutionary view of beginnings..." A focus of Enns is "re-educating" people on the Bible so they can reconcile it with "scientific truth."

Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and biblicists might not strongly object to the many of the things said in this Episcopalian resolution, but would strenuously object to its intent. For example, the archives research report found this resolution was "directly related" to a 2006 resolution which stated: “That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith...”

First, a few statements from Enns' piece, whether his or from the Episcopal catechism, with some brief comments

This Catechism is a breath of fresh air compared to the handwringing and fear that dominates the evangelical discussion.
I am not sure what "handwringing and fear...dominates the evangelical discussion." No doubt Enns has something in mind, but he does not explain. There may be some who are wringing their hands in fear of the discoveries of science, but the rest of us do not fear that God-given revelation will be overturned by man-driven specialization. Skeptics will come and skeptics will go. Heaven and earth -- the very textbook of the scientists -- shall pass away, but God's Word shall stand. It is forever settled in heaven.

The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.
All but the most rigid fundamentalists would agree with both of these statements. But this is the wrong question. It is not, "Did God give us a science textbook," rather "Did God get some of His information wrong in His revelation to man?" Science as we understand it in this discussion is in its very essence a study of nature and not Scripture. The real dividing line is between those who believe that the Bible is the accurate revelation of God through inspiration to men of God to write the Scriptures, or a hodge-podge of information from various ancient sources which are variably reliable and unreliable. What can we believe?

The Bible’s theological declarations about God and creation remain true because they are not dependent upon the ancient world-picture in which they appear.
It seems useful to many to separate the "theological declarations" of the Bible from the extraneous historical and scientific material within which they appear. But this is pipe dream. Why should anyone believe that the theological declarations are any more valid than the “ancient world-view” within which they appear?  Why believe what the Bible says about God if we can't even believe it about the subjects we can "test"? Whom will we trust to divide the true from the false? If the Bible is not an inspired book, why should we expect it to have true theological declarations about God and creation? Why not the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or the Zend Avesta? Might they not serve just as well?

Until evangelicals find a way to get to these points–quickly–there will be no true conversation on science and faith.
Maybe a simpler (and more honest) statement would be for Enns to write that if evangelicals don’t give up what they believe and acquiesce to the view held forth by scientists, then we have nothing to contribute to the conversation. Sounds like the “true conversation” mainly agrees with him!

Three observations about Peter Enns’ post and the religion vs. science debate

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church prefer science above religion. No, they would not say it that way. That might say that they are compatible, each valid in its own sphere. But the preference is seen in that religion – particularly the statements of the Bible – are a priori excluded from informing us on nature, creation and evolution. They are not valid because they do not complement, and sometimes contradict, what they think they observe in nature. And, of course, we could not be wrong about what we observe in nature. Obviously, “we understand the physical world more accurately than ancient people.”

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church exude arrogance toward those with whom they disagree (not that there is no arrogance among evangelicals). Obviously, “we understand the physical world more accurately than ancient people.” Truthfully, we understand some things about the physical world more accurately than ancient people, we think we understand all things about the physical world more accurately than ancient people, and in some cases we do not understand the physical world as accurately as ancient people. Before you write that statement off as an exercise in ignorance, search out some scientific or academic research that tells about not understanding how something was accomplished by some ancient civilization – or how the same thing could be accomplished by modern civilization. In what we know, we stand on the shoulders of the people who went before us. We have also lost some of the knowledge of those who went before us. And maybe, just maybe, Moses, Paul, and the 21st century believers who accept them at face value aren’t quite the Neanderthals you perceive us to be. But if we are, hey, we’re just too stupid to know it.

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church are not the final authority. Well, Enns probably is the final authority in his classroom when he’s grading papers. And the General Convention of the Episcopal Church does exercise a degree of authority over the church in the United States. But if I were to search for a final authority above all authorities, I would settle my search for that authority in Jesus Christ. If He is who He says He is, we know He understands the physical world more accurately than all ancient people and all modern people combined. He understands it absolutely accurately. Speaking to the Pharisees concerning marriage, Jesus said “...from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6).” Jesus credits the creation of man to God, Who made them from the beginning and not through billions of years of evolution. He also places their son Abel as an historical person in the beginning of time (Luke 11:50-51).*** Could Jesus be a credible Saviour and Son of God and not know these things more accurately than any people?

Conclusion

I find myself on opposite sides of the river from Peter Enns on the subject of the compatibility of science and religion. I don’t identify myself as an evangelical, though the world may thus label me. I don’t refer to myself as an evangelical, but I probably fit Enns’ description of those who need to learn something. But I resolutely refuse to learn his “something” represented in “Episcopalians on Science and Faith: gettin’ it done.” I freely own that Enns is more intelligent than I. I don’t doubt he is sincere. But on the subject of creation and evolution, faith and science, I self-consciously submit to the wisdom of Jesus Christ, who knows all things, both in the physical world and the spiritual world, more accurately than Peter Enns or I, more accurately than the General Convention of the Episcopal Church or the National Association of Evangelicals, more accurately that all the scientists and all the theologians. 

Is our Saviour credible? Can we believe what He said about creation? Or look we for another?

* The Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals is a research center and a program of Wheaton College.
** Eastern is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA. One might expect the university's Doctrinal Statement to be understood as "evangelical" and that the statement "We believe that God created human beings, male and female" should be taken in its simplest meaning to the exclusion of evolution. It apparently is not necessary, though, since every teacher is to subscribe to the Doctrinal Statement or "withdraw from all connections with the University" if they are not in accord with it.
*** Jesus matter-of-factly spoke of the events recorded in Genesis (and elsewhere in the Old Testament) as historical facts and did not allegorize them. He described them in the manner they were recorded. For examples: Adam and Eve as the first marriage, Abel their son as the first person murdered, that God made the Sabbath, Noah and the Flood, Moses and the serpent in the wilderness, the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites, Lot and his wife, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.