Clarke Morledge -- Computer Network Engineer, College of William and Mary...
I hiked the Mount of the Holy Cross, one of the famous Colorado Fourteeners, with some friends in July, 2012. My buddy, Mike Scott, snapped this photo of me on the summit.
Stephen Fry is an English comedian. Though not as well-known on the American side “of the pond,” Stephen Fry was interviewed on Ireland’s Public Service television recently where he expressed his views on God. The video went viral on YouTube, numbering over 5 million views in less that 2 weeks. Fry, like many skeptics, does not find satisfaction with how a “God” could create a world with so much suffering and evil in it… and that description is putting it…as they say…rather mildly (be forewarned).
In response, Justin Brierley, the British radio personality who moderates the Unbelievable radio podcast, a show I highly recommend, draws inspiration from one of Stephen Fry’s literary heroes, Oscar Wilde (the text of Brierley’s remarks can be found here). Though mostly known as being a skeptic, Oscar Wilde converted to Catholicism in the last few days of his life.
Casting aside questions about Roman Catholicism for the moment, how do you see Justin Brierley painting a different portrait of God than what Stephen Fry rails against? Oscar Wilde’s The Selfish Giant can be read here.
Some of this Veracity blogger’s distance relatives, or just a really bad TV show from the 1960s? (It’s About Time).
One of the most persistent challenges in trying to reconcile Biblical truth with the findings of modern science is this: What do you do with the cavemen?
The mainstream scientistic consensus today is that there have been human-like creatures discovered in the ancient fossil record that predate humans like you and me. Names such as Cro-Magnon man, homo erectus, and the neanderthal fill our imaginations with images of semi-ape, semi-human creatures hobbling or running around with crude tools, making grunting noises, many of them living in… well… caves. My wife thinks I must be related at times to these creatures, particularly when I get out of bed in the morning, bumping into things when I am barely awake!!
But seriously, could it be that these brute creatures are related to us, we homo-sapiens, or is such a concept alien to the teaching of the Bible? Does the existence of these creatures insult or even undermine the Christian concept of the special status of humanity’s uniqueness?
News within recent years suggests that there is some evidence of actual interbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals thousands of years ago, as in this story from the British Natural History museum:
So what does the Bible have to say regarding creatures like the neanderthal? Continue reading
We have pointed folks to a lot of resources regarding the creation/age-of-the-earth/evolution debate here at Veracity (just go to the main blog page, scroll down to where is says “search” and type in something like “creationism” and click GO, or go to our 2013 Symposium page for starters). But in my discussions, some get confused over a few of the terms used by different Christians in the debate.
One nagging question concerns what is the difference between “Old-Earth creationism” and “Intelligent Design.” The difference between “Young Earth creationism” and the “Old-Earth” view should be pretty straight forward: the “Young Earth” view holds that our planet is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, whereas the “Old-Earth” view is consistent with mainstream science regarding the age of the earth in terms of millions years.
The “Old-Earth” view differs from “Evolutionary Creationism” in that the “Old-Earth” view does not accept the idea that humans are a product of biological evolution, instead affirming that all humans are descended from a literal, historical Adam and Eve, specially created by God in a uniquely different creation event. In contrast, “Evolutionary Creationism” accepts the mainstream scientific consensus, yet nevertheless affirming that it is the God of the Bible who used the process of biological evolution to give us human beings, though there is quite a debate among Evolutionary Creationists as to the exact role Adam and Eve play in all of that (are Adam and Eve historical persons, or are they symbolic somehow?).
Sometimes you will hear “Evolutionary Creationism” referred to as being “Theistic Evolution.” But most evangelical Christians in the Evolutionary Creationism camp are moving away from the “Theistic Evolution” term because it does not boldly emphasize the Biblical concept of creation strong enough. Many who believe in “Theistic Evolution” believe in a “God,” but not necessarily the God of the Bible.
But what about “Intelligent Design?”
“Intelligent Design” is mostly opposed to “Evolutionary Creationism,” viewing the process of Darwinian evolution, particularly of man, as being completely inconsistent with the notion of an Intelligent Designer. “Intelligent Design” as a movement in general is a bit wary of the Young Earth view that rejects the old age of the earth. So does that mean that “Intelligent Design” is the same thing as “Old-Earth Creationism?”
Not quite.
There is indeed quite a bit of overlap between the two positions, but there are important differences. “Old-Earth Creationism” self-consciously is about defending a high view of the Bible. “Intelligent Design” as a movement, on the other hand, is not necessarily identified with the Bible or Christianity. Sure, there are evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who believe in “Intelligent Design,” such as Stephen C. Meyer, author of the best selling Darwin’s Doubt, but there are also many other proponents of “Intelligent Design” who do not embrace Biblical faith, such as popular author Jonathan Wells, a member of the Unification church (or the “Moonies”). The following video by Krista Bontrager, affiliated with the Old-Earth Reasons to Believe apologetics ministry, tells you more about it, in a language you can grasp from the bottom shelf.
As might be implied from the video, the “Intelligent Design” movement, particularly as it is articulated by the folks at the Discovery Institute, makes some helpful arguments that should be engaged by thoughtful Christians. However, “Intelligent Design” is not explicitly tied to a Biblical concept of creation as are the three dominant models: Young Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism. For that reason, while I fully affirm”intelligent design” (notice the small letters), I am not entirely excited about “Intelligent Design” (large caps) as a movement that Christians should uncritically embrace. I do not believe, as some Intelligent Designers speculate, that the Intelligent Designer of human life may have been some super extra-terrestrial life form. I also have friends of mine in the New Age Movement who subscribe to a type of “Intelligent Design,” but who nevertheless reject the Biblical teaching of a distinction between the Creator and the Creation.
In my view, Christians should be about winning others to the God of the Bible as the Creator, not just to some nebulous concept of an “Intelligent Designer,”, though I can concede someone might be persuaded of the existence of an Intelligent Designer as a type of first step in their journey towards Christ. Instead, I believe that Scripture is quite clear: God created humanity, and this God of the Bible created humans, male and female, in the image of God. We may debate exactly how God did the Creating, and over what type of timescale it happened in, and what role (if any) evolution has in this, but there should be unified agreement among followers of Christ that it is God, and God alone, who created us.
For Bill Nye, “creationism” means believing in a Young Earth that is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Other forms of “creationism,” including Old-Earth Creationism as articulated at Reasons to Believe and Evolutionary Creationism as articulated at BioLogos simply do not count as “creationism.”
For Bill Nye, the science of evolution does not allow a reasonable person to see any divine “plan” in nature… at least for him.
If you accept the black-and-white categories laid out by both Bill Nye and Ken Ham, it leaves very little room for talking about harmonizing the God of the Bible’s Creative activity with contemporary science without compromising either the Biblical authority on the one hand or modern Science on the other. I was not very thrilled with the debate as it just seemed as though the participants kept talking past one another, something that comes out in the Answers In Genesis video linked below.
What Michael Behe and Hugh Ross said was refreshingly encouraging. While both disagreed with the view of Darwinism held by the folks at BioLogos, and both nevertheless continue to try to persuade others to their point of view, both men still count a number of their critics at BioLogos as being friends.
Wow. What a novel concept: Embracing fellow believers in Christ as friends, even when you strongly disagree with them on a particular non-salvation issue.
Perhaps if others in the creation/age-of-the-earth/evolution debate within the Body of Christ had that type of attitude with one another, then when you have debates with folks like Bill Nye, it would not seem like you were always talking past the other person.
I want to say something about a movie I have not seen, American Sniper. In fact, I think my wife and I are among the handful of Christians in our church who have not seen the movie yet.
This latest film by Clint Eastwood, is about Chris Kyle, a sniper credited with some 160 kills during the Iraq War, a record in American military history. According to folks who have gone to see the film, and from this review by the Internetmonk, Kyle’s father gave his son advice when he was young: “there are three kinds of people: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Most people are sheep, they need protecting from the wolves that threaten them. The boy better not think of being anything but a sheepdog — strong, protective, using whatever means necessary to guarantee the safety of his own“.
Partly, American Sniper is contentious because of some of the historical inconsistencies resulting from what Clint Eastwood portrays in this haunting, tragic story, or what he leaves out by omission. But the other part is that while the film thoughtfully raises crucial issues, I wonder if it really explores them in any rich, theological depth. According to one review at the Patheos Anxious Bench blog, Chris Kyle slips a Bible into his pocket early in his youth, and he carries this Bible with him throughout his life. But what function does this Bible have for Chris Kyle? Is it God’s Word to him imparting a theological vision of what it means to be called as a sheepdog, or is it merely a talisman, a type of “good luck” charm, carried with him as a form of protection and sign of God’s blessing?
If you saw the movie yourself, how would you answer this?
For anyone who understands the Bible’s claim to be the very Word of God, and if you are a student of these Holy Scriptures, you can not help but be drawn into questions about violence, justice, and peace within the Bible. How do you reckon that one of the great ten commandments, “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) with God’s other commands to wipe out peoples such as the treacherous Amalekites?:
Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey (I Samuel 15:3 ESV).
We are called to love our neighbor on the one hand, but what are we to make of this uncompromising “kill man and woman, child and infant,” and all of their animals? This is pretty heavy stuff to consider indeed, but it is part of the matrix of questions for which the sacred writers want us to grapple. Is the message of the Bible one of peace and non-violence, or is it a message about justice where the use of deadly force is at times necessary, or a message that if left unfiltered condones genocide as many critics complain?
How do we reconcile the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ call to love one’s enemies (Matthew 5:44) with the Apostle Paul’s admonition to obey the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7), even if that requires some to serve in the military and kill other human beings?
These are age old questions. What is the right answer? Is it the “Just War Theory” of Saint Augustine, who instructed that there are times where the sniper must resort to acts of violence for the sake of some greater good? Or is the Christian to always pursue the path of non-violence, as articulated by the traditional Quakers and the Anabaptists? Different followers of Jesus have come to different, thoughtful conclusions to these matters.
I recently finished reading Eric Metaxas‘s biography of the 20th century German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who became a participant in the Resistance against the Nazis, entitled Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. How was it that this pastor and academic Bible teacher able to at one time embrace a commitment to pacifism, following the path of non-violence inspired by Mohandas Gandhi, only to then become involved in the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, discussed earlier on Veracity, did not see the Bible as a mere talisman. Metaxas makes it clear that Bonhoeffer wrestled with what God says in His Word. Bonhoeffer saw himself as a patriotic German citizen in a supposedly “Christian nation,” ready to participate in military service as required for the defense of that country but he also knew that the Nazis were intent on wiping out the Jewish people, and yet the Jews had no defense against the German war machine. To borrow from American Sniper, the European Jews were the sheep, the Nazis were the wolves, but was Bonhoeffer really called to be a sheepdog? As Bonhoeffer basically put it, if you see a madman driving a car down the road heading towards a group of children, you must throw a wrench into the wheel in order to slow down the car, even if it meant the eventual harm to the madman driver. But how can a follower of Jesus pick up that wrench himself as a weapon … without becoming sucked into the very web of evil that defined Hitler?
“We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”
How about this, Veracity reader?
I will go see American Sniper if you promise to read Metaxas’ book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Do we have a deal?
One of the most perceptive comments about the American Sniper film came from one of my small group members who saw it. While it is very tempting to want to pick up a gun and blow away every suspected terrorist you can find, to wipe out those whom we perceive as standing in the way of God’s justice, we must be mindful that “there but for the grace of God go I.” Before we begin to demonize every “extremist” out there and wish for their death, we must be willing first to look deep inside ourselves and examine the demons within.
What really separates me from that evil person “over there?”
Here is another way of putting it: how does one imagine oneself as a sheepdog protecting the sheep, when you have the “wolves” living inside of you? We may debate the question of violence in the Bible and how the Christian is supposed to think about it, but hopefully the unequivocal message of the Scriptures is that the source of all violence comes from within the human heart: your heart and my heart.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV)
Answering the questions raised by American Sniper and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are not easy, but grappling with our own sin, the demons within, those inner “wolves,” is the first place to start.
