Confusing Conversations 2. "Creation vs. Evolution" is not a conversation

I think it was Thomas Renz, a then lecturer at Oak Hill, who was the first to point out to me that Creation vs. Evolution really isn't a real conversation. It is the confusion of two conversations.

Really there is one staggeringly important conversation: Creation vs. Evolutionism

And one real, but far less important conversation: Creationism vs. Evolution.

The first conversation is vitally important because it is a conversation about worldviews. Is there a creator or not? Is the world utterly dependent upon that creator, or is "evolutionism" (the idea that evolution can explain everything) true? "Evolutionism" is a term used in different ways, but where used appropriately and not merely as a sneer, it is a materialistic philosophy that believes that evolution is not merely an historical explanation of what has happened, but also a philosophical explanation. Matter is all there is; matter happens to have thrown up these incredibly evolving organisms that have eventually, through an entirely materialistic process, led to the existence of humans.
By contrast, "creation" presupposes a theistic worldview: it assumes that the world is created by a divine being who is utterly in control of whatever processes have taken place to bring about humanity, and every other thing in existence, from the smallest molecule to the largest supercluster of galaxies. Whatever processes there may have been to get to where the creation is now, in a very real sense these processes can be described as his acts of creation.
All Christians should obviously be in agreement that "creation" rather than "evolutionism" is alone a satisfactory worldview that makes sense of the existence of our universe and everything in it.

The other debate is not about worldviews at all, though it is often confused as being so. It is a debate about ancient (Natural) History, the debate between Creationism and Evolution. It is a debate about the age of the earth; the time it took for certain species to come (be brought) into being. It is a debate about taxonomy: are the species fixed, or can there in time be sufficient divergence within a species that eventually one has multiple species.

These are, of course perfectly valid questions to be asking. But I hope that every theist at least recognises how these questions are far far less important than the questions of worldview.

The methodology by which we come to a particular conclusion on this second question might betray a worldview, and more of that anon; but it is inaccurate to imply that either position, in and of itself, encapsulates a worldview.

So in summary, we have two debates.

1) Worldview Debate: Creation (theism) vs. evolutionism (materialism)
2) History / Taxonomy debate: creationism (young earth / fixed species) vs. evolution (old earth, unfixed species)

Two questions to think about.
a) which debate is more important?
b) which debate is nearer the centre of the force of Genesis 1?

I think that all Christians who have read Genesis 1 carefully should be in no doubt at all that the answer to both these questions is (1)

For other posts in this series see here

Confusing Conversations about Creation

In preparing for preaching a sermon series on Genesis 1-3 I thought it would be good to get a little more up to speed on where the lay of the land is at the moment in the debates between creationists / intelligent design movement / theistic evolutionists and the new atheists.
I have to admit, that the issues involved, and particularly their relationship (or lack of it) to a right understanding of Genesis One can be enormously confusing. Many people seem to be talking past each other. They thing they are having one conversation when their discussion partner thinks it is an entirely different conversation. The conversations are confusing, precisely because one conversation is being confused with another.
I thought I'd do a few posts to examine the confusing of the conversation conversations and how confusing it can be. And if you are not confused yet, just wait!

Sad, and very sad...

"We come together in this place where… he brought joy as only he could."
"Though our hearts are aching we need to look up where he is..."
“I love [him] and I want to thank him so much for blessing me and every single individual on this earth…”
“He is going to live forever and ever and ever and ever."

Sadly, none of these quotes were intended to refer to the Lord Jesus, but to another very lost self-declared king.

Even as the coffin containing his corpse came in and the choir began,

“Soon and very soon we are going to see the king”

It was clear from the screams of fans in the congregation that they knew that the king they were hoping to see soon and very soon was the one whose body was being carried in that that moment.

Al Mohler put it well: " Where the Gospel of Christ is absent or eclipsed, this is all that is left. The messianism of Michael J. will just transfer to a new object."

The prayer of atheists.

Noting
1) the lyrics of "The script" song "breakeven"
2) the fact that google returns over 6 million results for the exact sentence "pray to a god I don't believe in". seems people can't help it. Perhaps people believe there is a God after all.
3) Why, when I believe there is a God do I not more often turn to him in prayer? Are we too often practical atheists?

Great title for a conference...

Great title for a day conference... maybe someone could give a blog that title!?
HT: Dave Bish

Conversation about sermon introductions

Over at the 9Marks Blog a few of us have been having a conversation about sermon introductions.

Deepak asked the question. I gave the "textbook" answer. Mike McKinley replied, questioning the usefulness of many introductions. I nuanced and Aaron Menikoff chipped in. Mike retorted. I'm planning to reply and link to this post in case anyone wants to read a brief (and not particularly clever) introduction.

So, here's the text of the introduction from Sunday's sermon on Jephthah... (Judges 10-12) I think I actually said something a little different to this, but this was the manuscript I took into the pulpit.

“Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings.”

Salvador Dalí quotes (Spanish painter, 1904-1989)

The point he’s making is clear: whatever natural abilities we have, we will not make the most of them unless we have ambition: a desire to use that which has been given us to serve some end.

What is your ambition? What are you intent on achieving with you life?

Fame? I wonder how many people around the country are already rehearsing their skills in order to attempt to have half a chance of fame in next year’s Britain’s got talent.

Wealth? Oscar Wilde once said, “Every man of ambition has to fight his century with its own weapons. What this century worships is wealth. The God of this century is wealth. To succeed one must have wealth. At all costs one must have wealth.”

Other ambitions seem far more down to earth than seeking untold wealth or fame, and yet can be just as much of a driving force in our lives. Perhaps you feel your ambitions are much more reasonable, and less, well... ambitious.

· A stable family

· A successful career

· A peaceful life

· Living to meet one’s great grandchildren

· Having a child

· Holding down a job

· Getting out of debt.

· Kicking a bad habit.

· Owning you own home

Perhaps you ahve to admit that you’ve given up on ambition. Your hopes have passed you by, and now you are content to live one day at a time, but occasionally you wonder if your life had become directionless: you feel as if you are not longer living, but only existing.

Ambition becomes a driving force that motivates one to sacrifice a great deal in order to serve your ambition.

What are you ambitious for?

What sacrifices are you willing to make in order to realise that ambition?

It is an important question because our ambitions set the direction of our lives, as much as we are able.

And in setting our life’s direction, it reveals what we think the purpose of life is.

What do your ambitions say about your understanding of the purpose of life?

Judges 10-12 introduces a new character who is nothing if not ambitious...

cartoon as a medium for apologetics

Perhaps you may be wondering why I've branched into cartoons for my last couple of posts.
Is it because I've discovered a great artistic ability that had long laid dormant? (no, I discovered a website that will provide the drawings for me!)
But, more importantly I've come to the conclusion that strip cartoons are an excellent medium for presuppositional apologetics.
1) The best cartoons make people think, until they have worked out the irony of the situation. One of the hardest obstacles to the apologist is the fact that in an apologetic conversation people are coming up with their replies to the point being made before they have time to think about the point itself. The cartoon forces them to take that time.
2) The medium gets people off the defensive.
3) Cartoons are an excellent medium for demonstrating the untenability and laughability of a particular position in a way that is disarming.

There are some positives. What do you think the dangers are?

Ecclesiastes 12:14

Learned how to embed with this one...

Romans 1:20

or, for a clearer view go to...

http://stripgenerator.com/strip/248086/

Gideon, Fleeces and paralysis

Having preached a couple of weeks ago on Gideon, it obviously raised questions about guidance: is "laying out a fleece" a good way forward when attempting to discern God's will?

Clearly in the Gideon narrative, he lays out fleeces not to try to discern God's will (he knows that God has already revealed it to him) but because he doubts God's word. Judges 6:36-37 make that very clear.

Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised - look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said."

Twice he asks God to prove that he will keep his promises. This is not a model of seeking God's will, but an example of how we too often equivocate in response to God's clear will.

What then should we expect in searching for God's will for our lives?

This is a section from the sermon I preached a couple of weeks ago:

What do we do then if the Lord hasn’t spoken clearly on an issue: like our choice of career, church, or marriage partner?

I remember someone preaching this passage when I was a child and talking about how he had ‘laid out a fleece’ when he was uncertain as to whether to propose to his wife: he had said to the Lord that if three people talked about rings that day, then he’d propose to his wife that evening. Three people mentioned rings that day, and, by God's grace they were still happily married decades later.

Are these less than clear decisions the time to lay out a fleece? No! we are nowhere told that in Scripture; it just isn't a biblical model of how we are to make decision. Clearly God can direct our steps in very personal and clear ways; we are never told to wait for him to do that before we make decisions though: we are to pray for wisdom, search for wisdom in his word, and seek the wisdom of other disciples, and then make a decision that we trust will be wise. Indecisiveness is not a sign of humility; it is not a sign of maturity; waiting for God to reveal the future to us before we take any decisions is a sign of a lack of trust in the Sovereign Lord who plans everything to our good. It is sign that we think it is safer to do nothing…

Dave Bish reviews a book here that has the opposite advice for a life well spent: JUST DO SOMETHING!