Not super pleasant (to put it mildly), but educational . . .

My last two posts (here and here) have obviously generated quite a bit of discussion--more, I think, than any posts on this blog have generated before. I am sure it is all thanks to Ken Ham. I didn't particularly enjoy his post, but I thank him for it, anyway. Thank you, Ken.

A strong reason for thanksgiving: The discussions that have followed have helped me to learn; they have enabled me to say some things I have never said before (see the “other matters that I think need to be addressed," below; I have never expressed what I say in items #1 and #2 of these "other matters"; and I think I have never expressed so clearly what I attempt to say in item #3 [again, within the "other matters" portion, below]).

As I read the comments of various posters on a thread in HomeSchoolReviews.com, I felt led to write and post the following:

I received a Google notification that this conversation was happening. So I came over, read many of the posts, and thought I should probably sign up on HomeSchool Reviews so that I could speak. Especially since it was my post to which Mr. Ham was replying.

A few points of clarification:

* SONLIGHT did not call Ken Ham "Pope Ham." *I*, John Holzmann, called him a pope. I did so in my personal blog (a Google Blogger blog) "John's Corner" (http://johnscorner.blogspot.com).

* If my comments reveal my character (or Sonlight's character, if you are determined to drag Sonlight into the matter, despite the fact that the company had nothing to do with my post), I ask that you

1) please look at my response when I was made aware of my wrong-doing. (I have apologized.)

2) please consider the provocations that elicited my inappropriate response. (Mr. Ham has made false statements about me on numerous occasions dating back to 1999. He has made false statements about Sonlight Curriculum as well.)

3) consider whether you REALLY believe my behavior, per se, is (or was) as heinous as some have made it out to be. Let me reiterate: I BELIEVE I WAS IN THE WRONG. I shouldn't have stooped to name-calling. But if you believe my name-calling is as heinous as some seem to believe it was, I am astonished that the Christian homeschooling community has not risen in indignation over Mr. Ham's name-calling and his sponsorship--in his magazine and on his website--of IDENTICAL language to that which I used. (I could talk about OTHER language. But let us focus solely on the “pope” idea. [NOTE: I was not aware of this until I happened to bump into the article yesterday. But . . . ] For IDENTICAL language used by Answers in Genesis, see the article "Evangelical Popes" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/evangelical-popes).)

*********

What I have just written speaks, I believe, to the primary matters that seem to be of concern with respect to my POST.

HOWEVER, there are other matters that I think need to be addressed.

* The matter of "compromise" and "error" and, at least as importantly, the "Gospel" and "authority" questions Mr. Ham raises.

1) I would like to note that I hold Mr. Ham in very high regard for his repeated--CONSISTENT--"banging of the drum" about the fundamental issues related to Gospel and authority that can arise if one attempts to correlate a “straightforward” reading of Genesis 1-3 (as Mr. Ham--and, I'm sure, most readers here--would define “straightforward”) with the views of most modern scientists. As Mr. Ham told me about 14 years ago (I'm not going to quote him, because I'm recalling this from memory, and I don't have a perfect memory; but, he said something like), “You will find that there is no solid foundation with an old-earth view. They don't have a consistent view of the Bible. The Biblical narrative doesn't hang together under an old-earth view.” --Something like that.

I have to say that, in general, I AGREE WITH HIM. What I have found is that most old-earthers take the “scientific” view and kind of wave their hands over the Bible and say, “I don't know how it all goes together, but I believe the Bible and I believe science. And so . . . (I am an old-earther.)”

But I have been uncomfortable with such a position.

THEREFORE,

2) I agree with Mr. Ham that, if someone is going to teach old-earth (creationism or evolutionism or anything else), and they are going to claim to be Bible-believing Christians, then they should deal with the problems. They should address the kinds of things about which Mr. Ham keeps banging the drum. They SHOULDN'T simply “wave their hands.”

As different people in the homeschool community have made clear to me, our view of Genesis 1-11 will affect how we teach history (is there history before 4004 BC . . . or not? Are Adam and Eve to be included in our regular history course . . . or “only” in Bible? . . . If we include them only in a Bible program, aren't we indicating that they aren't part of regular history? Etc.); it will affect how we teach science; it will affect how we teach the Bible itself. . . . --These are not mere “hand-waving” kinds of matters!

HOWEVER,

3) In the same way that (most of us, anyway!) seem to be able to at least let each other pursue our own beliefs and practices without charging each other with “compromise” and “error” and an unwillingness to bow to the authority of Scripture when it comes to matters like women wearing head coverings in church; or when it comes to how we observe (or fail to observe) the Sabbath; or “dresses only”; or baptism; or the end times; so I believe it ought to be here, with respect to our views on how we should interpret Genesis 1-11.

I am NOT suggesting people should not discuss these matters (anymore than I would suggest we ought not to discuss head coverings, Sabbath observances, our manner or dress, baptism, end-times prophecy, or anything else).

What I am attempting to say is that . . .

IN THE SAME MANNER as we are able to discuss these matters without charging one another with compromise and error with respect to our fundamental view of Scripture (i.e., when we disagree with one another, we don't charge those on the opposite side with the obvious sin of calling the authority of Scripture into question!) . . . so, here, with respect to our interpretations of Genesis 1-11.

I believe we should CHALLENGE each other to think through the implications of our views (like the people who pointed out that a person’s view of Genesis 1-11 is going to impact their view of history). We should raise all of the kinds of issues and concerns that Ken Ham consistently raises. ASK people of another opinion how their views square with the idea (say) of death before the fall. ASK how they interpret Romans 5:12ff. DISCUSS how we view these passages and why.

I believe we do the body of Christ damage when, rather than behaving in this way, we take the far more offensive road and call anyone who disagrees with us “compromisers” or “snakes in the grass.” This shuts off communication. It divides the church. It precludes useful discussion and the opportunity to learn. (Participants on neither side of a “conversation” in which we are being told we are either imbeciles (or such terms; I am thinking of less pretty comments probably more likely to come from the mouth of an old-earther, though I have heard young-earthers use similar verbiage with respect to those with whom they disagree!), or a “conversation” in which we are being told we are “compromisers” (etc.): Participants in those kinds of “conversations” don't usually wind up actually conversing! And we don't benefit one another.)

I want us to provide room for one another to hear each other out, to be challenged, and to grow in the grace and knowledge and wisdom and powerful work of Christ in the world.

Let us, as the founders of the United States once said, “hang together” . . . that we might not “hang separately.”

Blessings!

John Holzmann

Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation

Okay. It's time for me to begin talking about Denis Lamoureux's book Evolutionary Creation.

I finally concluded reading this tome on our flight home from Europe last Sunday. It was a painful--but, I thought, necessary--task.

I want to do for you what I don't normally do and what Lamoureux himself failed to do in his book: I want to summarize the guts of his "message" before I present the "arguments" he offers and my detailed critique of what he says and how he says it.

Basic Thesis

Lamoureux's basic thesis: the narratives contained in Genesis 1-11 convey uniquely God-inspired messages about spiritual realities and spiritual truths that human beings throughout history--all people--have needed and still need to take seriously. At the same time, he says, these narratives contain virtually no information that anyone should attend to in order to inform or shape their views of history or science.

Put another way: We need to apply the same kind of discernment to our interpretation of Scripture that we naturally afford our interpretation of Jesus' incarnation. We understand that, in order to speak to the people of His day, Jesus had to utilize the language and cultural forms appropriate to that time and place. Even if He had wanted to, He would not--because He could not, properly--speak of galaxies, bacteria, thermonuclear energy, or calculus. The concepts themselves didn't exist at that time in human culture, and there was no need for Jesus to "enlighten" them concerning their ignorance. Jesus spoke real (spiritual) truth, but He accommodated Himself to the limitations of His audience.

So it is, says Lamoureux, with Scripture. God speaks real (spiritual) truth in the Bible, but He accommodated Himself to the limitations of His audience when it came to the literary forms and the assumptive history and science communicated throughout. Rather than confusing and upsetting His audience with long-winded and, ultimately, almost assuredly non-understandable discourses about "the way things really are" in the physical realm, God utilized the history and science of their day-- the things they understood (whether literally true or not [and Lamoureux says they are not!])-- . . . God utilized what the people of that day understood concerning history and the physical realm in order to convey true Truth about spiritual realities.

Lamoureux's perspective: He calls it the "Message-Incident Principle." Anything in Genesis 1-11 that we might perceive as impinging on history or science . . . --Any such thing is merely an incidental vessel, the "packaging," if you will, designed to carry the spiritual message of Scripture--the central purpose for which the Bible was written.

In essence, then: We can toss the wrapper, even while we savor what the wrapper contains.

What Does Such a Perspective Mean . . . and How Far Should We Apply It?

Lamoureux is unable to hold his application of the Message-Incident Principle to Genesis 1-11 only. Indeed, part of his "argument" for the Principle rests on the historical debate over how one can adopt a Galilean-Copernican perspective concerning the universe in light of passages like 1 Chronicles 16:30b, Psalm 93:1b, or Psalm 96:10b--all of which unmistakably declare: "the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

"No Christian today believes the earth is stationary," Lamoureux asserts, "and no one interprets [these passages] literally. For that matter, the Galileo affair teaches us that science contributes to biblical interpretation" (p. 112). And what it ought to contribute to our interpretation of Genesis 1-11, Lamoureux says, is the realization that Genesis 1 to 11 has nothing to contribute to us in the realm of science or history.

Moreover, while

[t]he Old Testament clearly presents the immovability of the earth, . . . the purpose of [1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, and Psalm 96:10] is not to reveal any fact about nature. Rather, [the phrase about the world's immovability is] found in passages that praise God's Lordship over the creation. In other words, this ancient geological understanding is an incidental vessel used to reveal the message that the Lord is the Ordainer and Sustainer of the world.

--Ibid.

In the same way, then, we need to (re)interpret Genesis 1-11. Thus, Genesis 1 is "not a record of the history of the creation of the heavens, and . . . [it] is not a history of the origin of life, including humanity" (p. 192); rather, "Christians throughout the ages [have recognized and need, today, to recognize] that the primary purpose of Gen 1 is to reveal the Message of Faith that God is the Creator" and, moreover, that men and women enjoy a "unique position" in the world as creatures made in God's image (p. 198).

Thus, too, Genesis 2 "is not historical" (p. 198) and "is not a historical account of human origins" (p. 201). "[I]ts purpose is not to disclose how God made the universe and life, including humanity" (p. 201), but it

complements the Divine Theology in Gen 1 and asserts that humanity is a special and unique creation. We are the only creatures in a personal relationship with the Creator. This chapter also reveals that men and women were made to enjoy the mystery of marriage. . . . And most importantly, Gen 2 reveals little God sets limits on human freedom, and failure to respect these boundaries has serious consequences.

--p. 202

As for Genesis 3:

[T]he ancient motifs in Gen 3, the ancient understanding of causality, and the fossil record all point away from the historicity of this chapter and the causal connection between sin and death. . . .[T]he Message of Faith in Gen 3 is not dependent upon the historical reality of a lost idyllic age, a talking snake, mystical fruit, or cherubim. Instead, these ancient motifs are incidental to a Divine Theology that was radically different from the pagan beliefs surrounding the Hebrews.

Genesis 3 reveals the reality of human sin. . . . [It] reveals that humans are responsible for their actions and are accountable before God. The consequences of disobedience are significant because the Creator judges men and women for their sins. . . .

Despite the traditional literal reading of Gen 3 as actual history, the revelatory power of this divinely inspired account has been affirmed over and over again throughout the ages. It has consistently convicted men and women of their sins, and has left him knowing that God judges them accordingly. . . . Who has not experienced the spiritual-intellectual dynamic of the Garden of Eden? Is anyone not tempted to disobey their Maker? And who has not tried to rationalize their sin before the Holy Spirit? Clearly, the inerrant and infallible Messages of Faith in Gen 3 transcend the incidental ancient motifs and ancient categories of causality through which they are revealed.

--pp. 202, 203, 206

And so it goes.

Lamoureux(re)interprets each chapter of Genesis 1-11 along these lines.

And beyond Genesis 1-11?

. . . I'll have to address that in my next post on this subject.