Another interesting video by Ian Juby on the impact of the flood on demise of dinosaurs, showing that other theories are scientifically inconsistent. christianima.com/wazooloo/
"Many of the mainline Protestant churches discussing divestment are struggling, having seen significant declines in attendance over the last two generations." (according to Jeremy's linked article).
"The (United Church of Christ) denomination places high emphasis on participation in worldwide interfaith and ecumenical efforts.[5][6] The national settings of the UCC have historically favored liberal views on social issues, such as civil rights, gay rights, women's rights and abortion rights." Wikipedia. This is one of the churches favoring divestment. It would be a question as to whether the oil industry is more immoral than this church....when it comes to gay rights, sex education and abortion rights.
Rinse 'n, I don't think you are really listening to what I said. The article you quoted speaks for itself, and it contradicts itself. If you can't see how it contradicts itself, then that is your problem. I have a degree in science, as well as some postgraduate studies. And a B.A. as well. You have not answered my question: Is an incomplete column still a column? They (not I) claim that their geologic sequence columns are all missing a layer somewhere; all have gaps.
There are creationists who claim the column exists, and other creationists who do not. Why should I choose one over the other? I am just going by what they say about it. Matson contradicts himself.
Norman, I don't think it is about demonizing "any sort of science". It's about drawing attention to the consequences of various approaches to science, as well as recognizing the impact that these approaches have had on people like Dawkins, Darwin, Templeton, etc. Evolution as a theory can no more drive people away from faith than a wooden image of a sungod. But our acceptance of it, especially in its totality, can definately encourage people to remove themselves from God. Those endeavors that present information which shows the difficulties with the evolutionary theory, are attempting to encourage people not to reject the bible the way that Templeton or Dawkins have done.
Can skeptics be convinced? Not easily, but possibly. It is difficult to change paradigms which have now existed for nigh on 100 years or more. So they won't change quickly. But that is no reason to give up, and it is no reason to ignore the difficulties with the evolutionary theory. It is no reason to stop investigating alternative explanations of various phenomena. It is no reason either to ignore God's preemptive powers, and our finite understanding and ability to see. The very light that God created, limits our ability to see the present completely, since we are limited in our perception by the speed of light. But our pride and human ego seems to ignore that fact, and resorts to our supposed superiority over God's power and word.
This is a battle that is worth fighting. Meanwhile, we also realize that God will sort it out for us in the end.
First, we need to trust God. I know that sounds like a stupid oversimplification, but it is so important, that it can never be forgotten nor neglected. It is God's kingdom, not ours, and we seek God's glory, not our own (personal nor denominational). So, the issue of bringing God's word is not separate from denomination, but always it is first God's word, then perhaps denomination. The more we focus on denomination, the less the denomination will benefit.
We do not plant churches just so we can say we have more churches, do we? do we? Aren't we planting churches so that no lambs and sheep will be lost? So that God's word speaks more clearly? So that is what we should focus on first.
In a "planting" situation, we plant God's word. To bring in the lost. Then we use God's word to encourage the saved. Bringing new believers to a greater knowledge of love and grace in Jesus is good, necessary. But in essence, it is the same purpose for old believers; a greater knowledge of love and grace in Christ. Just at a different stage. And we know how quickly and urgently new believers capture this knowledge, often not taking it for granted, nor being complacent like "old" believers.
The new church plant should be a natural consequence of the mission effort. And I certainly do not agree with the nonsense of having a group that has been worshipping together, being called an emerging church for ten or twenty years. That is simply absurd, hierarchical, autocratic, and egotistical. The normal situation would be perhaps about three years, maybe less. This sounds scary sometimes. But only if you put on unreasonable expectations. And remember, we need to trust the Lord.
Rinsen, I agree with you that some creationists believe that the entire geologic column is represented in a number of places on earth. The unknown is really whether all of the sedimentation from each geo period is represented or not. When erosion occurs, it is difficult to demonstrate how much erosion has occurred. The thickest layers found on earth for the various periods when added together would make a 200 mile long column. This might not be the maximum, since even those thickest layers could theoretically have eroded some. The deepest column presently would be about 16 miles. So it is possible that some of those "intact" columns could have had some erosion taking out portions of various time periods, even though the major time periods are still represented. So for example if the Ordovician period lasted 80 million years, there may still be several millions of years not represented in that column for that period.
So that may be a technicality about completeness of the column. However, I agree that some creationists believe the entire geologic column is represented in a number of places on earth at a scale that satisfies them.
Also in answer to Marie Vogel's question, about how this discussion relates to our faith and our relationship to God, I want to shamelessly promote Ian Juby's new "Genesis Week" youtube videos, which highlight scientific problems with the evolutionary theory, as well as putting it into context of our relationship to God. Some quotes from Ian, "God did not say to us, let us be unreasonable together." "God gave us a brain for a reason." "God did not say, 'be ye transformed by the removal of your mind', but God gave you a mind for a reason." "Error begs for tolerance, but the truth demands scrutiny."
It's available in several different ways, including being broadcast on the Miracle Channel, I think. Also, Wazooloo.com, or GenesisWeek.com. As well as being scientifically knowledgeable and astute, he admits to errors when they occur, and is also entertaining and energetic. He helped to design and build the creation science museum in Big Valley, Alberta, as well as building a travelling creation science museum. He has travelled throughout north america looking at various geological formations and fossils. He is by training a robotics engineer, and is a member of Mensa. And fun to listen to.
Jeff, it would seem there is some authority attached to the office of deacon, but probably within the context of the role of this office, and not in the same sense as the elders. Otherwise whywould the apostles not have merely appointed more elders, or why would there even be a distinction between the two roles as portrayed in Timothy and Titus? The other thing to remember that at least one of the apostles referred to himself as a fellow elder in the epistle of Peter. The lists of various roles such as "apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, healing, helpers, guidance...". does not mention elders at all, nor deacons, and Acts 6 does not mention deacons.. Timothy and Titus seem to be more indicative of elder and deacon offices, not mentioning the role of apostle. I wonder if you would apply the same principle of office parity (that both elders and deacons are "ruling"), to office parity for elders, thus permitting elders to preach the word and administer the sacraments. Just wondering....
Don't know if I should comment on this too much, but it is interesting that Keith is suggesting this, while term limits for elders are being advocated by DeMoor and the church order. Theoretically a bishop could work, but then, any system could work if there are no problems. Having a bishop impose a preacher who was headed in different theological and missional directions, would not be helpful. I'm also reminded of bishops in another unnamed denomination who simply shuffled child abusers around from place to place. It would be more useful, if we simply acknowledged that article 17 pastors could be very viable pastors/preachers if they were in the right location, just as we acknowledge that there are many pastors who have not experienced an article 17 who nevertheless still do not fit in many congregations.
I would also add that I doubt that any council dealing with article 17 would think it got off scot free. The trauma, discontent, struggle could often leave permanent scars on council members, which should not be discounted so easily.
Excellent points, Richard. As Christians, we should always start with an assumption based on what Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
And Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God."
Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God. The Word was God."
These are our starting point.
But when it comes to mission, we know that only God can bring someone to Him. We cannot do it on our own. Not by reason. Not by being nice. Not by bring coffee and cookies. Not by apologetics or reason. Even the answer to our prayers requires God's permission and plan and will.
Still, how do we be obedient to Him? How do we prove He matters to us? How do we know we are presenting and obeying God, rather than a creation of our own imagination?
The epistle of John says that if we belong to him, we will obey His commandments. And what does He command? To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and to love our neighbors.
To love our neighbors sometimes includes apologetics, as well as coffee and cake. If we ignore what impediments they have, or ignore their paradigm and their frame of reference, we are not getting to know our neighbors. If we use apologetics merely as a tool to beat them down and defeat them, then we are not loving our neighbor, but if we use it as a way of protecting them from storms, from insecurity, from purposelessness and aimlessness, then we can love our neighbor and demonstrate God's love.
If you regard belief in evolution like an addiction, then would you try to bring faith as a gift of God, and ignore the addiction? Especially an addiction that is so difficult to reconcile with miracles, with faith, with knowledge of sin, and with a sense of sacrifice and forgiveness?
That only facts are true, is semantics (to me at least). That God exists, is a fact. That God loves me is a fact. That God has forgiven me is a fact. Maybe empiricism is better described as talking about facts concerning what we can sense, feel, taste, touch, etc. But I agree that empiricism is a small box to live in.
I agree we depend on the work of the spirit. Totally. But scripture reminds us to test the spirits, to see whether they are of God, whether they are "true". This testing is also the work of the Spirit.
I don't think as Christians we ought to live in an either/or when it comes to faith and reason. Faith guides our reason, and reason substantiates our faith. So while I agree that knowing things about God is not the same as knowing God, God does not ask us to put our brains and thinking and reason into the garbage, nor separate our reason from faith as if reason was bad and faith was good. God created us with reason, just like we are created with eyes to see and ears to hear. And the Spirit makes the eyes and ears of our heart work properly; he also guides our reason, and claims it for God/himself.
Your last paragraph is interesting. Maybe you express some things a bit different than the way I think of them. I think I agree, that teaching theology is different than living theology, but then, that should be part of teaching theology. Our theology should teach that God is involved in our life, always has been and always will be. But I would argue that true teaching about God, is in fact actually introducing us to Him, so that we meet Him. Otherwise it is false teaching due to omission of the vitality and presence of God.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Another interesting video by Ian Juby on the impact of the flood on demise of dinosaurs, showing that other theories are scientifically inconsistent. christianima.com/wazooloo/
Posted in: The Pope as Evangelist
Steve, some of the comments under the Christianity Today article are enlightening.
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
"Many of the mainline Protestant churches discussing divestment are struggling, having seen significant declines in attendance over the last two generations." (according to Jeremy's linked article).
"The (United Church of Christ) denomination places high emphasis on participation in worldwide interfaith and ecumenical efforts.[5][6] The national settings of the UCC have historically favored liberal views on social issues, such as civil rights, gay rights, women's rights and abortion rights." Wikipedia. This is one of the churches favoring divestment. It would be a question as to whether the oil industry is more immoral than this church....when it comes to gay rights, sex education and abortion rights.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Rinse 'n, I don't think you are really listening to what I said. The article you quoted speaks for itself, and it contradicts itself. If you can't see how it contradicts itself, then that is your problem. I have a degree in science, as well as some postgraduate studies. And a B.A. as well. You have not answered my question: Is an incomplete column still a column? They (not I) claim that their geologic sequence columns are all missing a layer somewhere; all have gaps.
There are creationists who claim the column exists, and other creationists who do not. Why should I choose one over the other? I am just going by what they say about it. Matson contradicts himself.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, I don't think it is about demonizing "any sort of science". It's about drawing attention to the consequences of various approaches to science, as well as recognizing the impact that these approaches have had on people like Dawkins, Darwin, Templeton, etc. Evolution as a theory can no more drive people away from faith than a wooden image of a sungod. But our acceptance of it, especially in its totality, can definately encourage people to remove themselves from God. Those endeavors that present information which shows the difficulties with the evolutionary theory, are attempting to encourage people not to reject the bible the way that Templeton or Dawkins have done.
Can skeptics be convinced? Not easily, but possibly. It is difficult to change paradigms which have now existed for nigh on 100 years or more. So they won't change quickly. But that is no reason to give up, and it is no reason to ignore the difficulties with the evolutionary theory. It is no reason to stop investigating alternative explanations of various phenomena. It is no reason either to ignore God's preemptive powers, and our finite understanding and ability to see. The very light that God created, limits our ability to see the present completely, since we are limited in our perception by the speed of light. But our pride and human ego seems to ignore that fact, and resorts to our supposed superiority over God's power and word.
This is a battle that is worth fighting. Meanwhile, we also realize that God will sort it out for us in the end.
Posted in: Of Elephants and Rabbits: Church Multiplication
First, we need to trust God. I know that sounds like a stupid oversimplification, but it is so important, that it can never be forgotten nor neglected. It is God's kingdom, not ours, and we seek God's glory, not our own (personal nor denominational). So, the issue of bringing God's word is not separate from denomination, but always it is first God's word, then perhaps denomination. The more we focus on denomination, the less the denomination will benefit.
We do not plant churches just so we can say we have more churches, do we? do we? Aren't we planting churches so that no lambs and sheep will be lost? So that God's word speaks more clearly? So that is what we should focus on first.
In a "planting" situation, we plant God's word. To bring in the lost. Then we use God's word to encourage the saved. Bringing new believers to a greater knowledge of love and grace in Jesus is good, necessary. But in essence, it is the same purpose for old believers; a greater knowledge of love and grace in Christ. Just at a different stage. And we know how quickly and urgently new believers capture this knowledge, often not taking it for granted, nor being complacent like "old" believers.
The new church plant should be a natural consequence of the mission effort. And I certainly do not agree with the nonsense of having a group that has been worshipping together, being called an emerging church for ten or twenty years. That is simply absurd, hierarchical, autocratic, and egotistical. The normal situation would be perhaps about three years, maybe less. This sounds scary sometimes. But only if you put on unreasonable expectations. And remember, we need to trust the Lord.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Rinsen, I agree with you that some creationists believe that the entire geologic column is represented in a number of places on earth. The unknown is really whether all of the sedimentation from each geo period is represented or not. When erosion occurs, it is difficult to demonstrate how much erosion has occurred. The thickest layers found on earth for the various periods when added together would make a 200 mile long column. This might not be the maximum, since even those thickest layers could theoretically have eroded some. The deepest column presently would be about 16 miles. So it is possible that some of those "intact" columns could have had some erosion taking out portions of various time periods, even though the major time periods are still represented. So for example if the Ordovician period lasted 80 million years, there may still be several millions of years not represented in that column for that period.
So that may be a technicality about completeness of the column. However, I agree that some creationists believe the entire geologic column is represented in a number of places on earth at a scale that satisfies them.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norm, hope you enjoy her paper.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Also in answer to Marie Vogel's question, about how this discussion relates to our faith and our relationship to God, I want to shamelessly promote Ian Juby's new "Genesis Week" youtube videos, which highlight scientific problems with the evolutionary theory, as well as putting it into context of our relationship to God. Some quotes from Ian, "God did not say to us, let us be unreasonable together." "God gave us a brain for a reason." "God did not say, 'be ye transformed by the removal of your mind', but God gave you a mind for a reason." "Error begs for tolerance, but the truth demands scrutiny."
It's available in several different ways, including being broadcast on the Miracle Channel, I think. Also, Wazooloo.com, or GenesisWeek.com. As well as being scientifically knowledgeable and astute, he admits to errors when they occur, and is also entertaining and energetic. He helped to design and build the creation science museum in Big Valley, Alberta, as well as building a travelling creation science museum. He has travelled throughout north america looking at various geological formations and fossils. He is by training a robotics engineer, and is a member of Mensa. And fun to listen to.
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed and Experience of Deacons at Classis
Jeff, it would seem there is some authority attached to the office of deacon, but probably within the context of the role of this office, and not in the same sense as the elders. Otherwise whywould the apostles not have merely appointed more elders, or why would there even be a distinction between the two roles as portrayed in Timothy and Titus? The other thing to remember that at least one of the apostles referred to himself as a fellow elder in the epistle of Peter. The lists of various roles such as "apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, healing, helpers, guidance...". does not mention elders at all, nor deacons, and Acts 6 does not mention deacons.. Timothy and Titus seem to be more indicative of elder and deacon offices, not mentioning the role of apostle. I wonder if you would apply the same principle of office parity (that both elders and deacons are "ruling"), to office parity for elders, thus permitting elders to preach the word and administer the sacraments. Just wondering....
Posted in: Some Denominations Have Bishops; We Have Article 17
Don't know if I should comment on this too much, but it is interesting that Keith is suggesting this, while term limits for elders are being advocated by DeMoor and the church order. Theoretically a bishop could work, but then, any system could work if there are no problems. Having a bishop impose a preacher who was headed in different theological and missional directions, would not be helpful. I'm also reminded of bishops in another unnamed denomination who simply shuffled child abusers around from place to place. It would be more useful, if we simply acknowledged that article 17 pastors could be very viable pastors/preachers if they were in the right location, just as we acknowledge that there are many pastors who have not experienced an article 17 who nevertheless still do not fit in many congregations.
I would also add that I doubt that any council dealing with article 17 would think it got off scot free. The trauma, discontent, struggle could often leave permanent scars on council members, which should not be discounted so easily.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Excellent points, Richard. As Christians, we should always start with an assumption based on what Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
And Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God."
Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God. The Word was God."
These are our starting point.
But when it comes to mission, we know that only God can bring someone to Him. We cannot do it on our own. Not by reason. Not by being nice. Not by bring coffee and cookies. Not by apologetics or reason. Even the answer to our prayers requires God's permission and plan and will.
Still, how do we be obedient to Him? How do we prove He matters to us? How do we know we are presenting and obeying God, rather than a creation of our own imagination?
The epistle of John says that if we belong to him, we will obey His commandments. And what does He command? To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and to love our neighbors.
To love our neighbors sometimes includes apologetics, as well as coffee and cake. If we ignore what impediments they have, or ignore their paradigm and their frame of reference, we are not getting to know our neighbors. If we use apologetics merely as a tool to beat them down and defeat them, then we are not loving our neighbor, but if we use it as a way of protecting them from storms, from insecurity, from purposelessness and aimlessness, then we can love our neighbor and demonstrate God's love.
If you regard belief in evolution like an addiction, then would you try to bring faith as a gift of God, and ignore the addiction? Especially an addiction that is so difficult to reconcile with miracles, with faith, with knowledge of sin, and with a sense of sacrifice and forgiveness?
That only facts are true, is semantics (to me at least). That God exists, is a fact. That God loves me is a fact. That God has forgiven me is a fact. Maybe empiricism is better described as talking about facts concerning what we can sense, feel, taste, touch, etc. But I agree that empiricism is a small box to live in.
I agree we depend on the work of the spirit. Totally. But scripture reminds us to test the spirits, to see whether they are of God, whether they are "true". This testing is also the work of the Spirit.
I don't think as Christians we ought to live in an either/or when it comes to faith and reason. Faith guides our reason, and reason substantiates our faith. So while I agree that knowing things about God is not the same as knowing God, God does not ask us to put our brains and thinking and reason into the garbage, nor separate our reason from faith as if reason was bad and faith was good. God created us with reason, just like we are created with eyes to see and ears to hear. And the Spirit makes the eyes and ears of our heart work properly; he also guides our reason, and claims it for God/himself.
Your last paragraph is interesting. Maybe you express some things a bit different than the way I think of them. I think I agree, that teaching theology is different than living theology, but then, that should be part of teaching theology. Our theology should teach that God is involved in our life, always has been and always will be. But I would argue that true teaching about God, is in fact actually introducing us to Him, so that we meet Him. Otherwise it is false teaching due to omission of the vitality and presence of God.
Great points, Richard!