Editorial license

Somehow, I saw this t-shirt design . . .


. . . and was reminded of my complaint) about Answers in Genesis' "correction" of their "error" in handling Spurgeon's 30th sermon. (Click on this link, then do a search on Mark Looy to discover why I put the word error in quotes.)

Interesting: Someone--whoever controls their website--has now revised AiG's revised version of Spurgeon's sermon further.

In some ways, I'd say it is an improvement over the previous emendation. They have removed their two rewritten sentences that changed Spurgeon's obvious old-earth "Gapism" to a young-earth creationism in six 24-hour days.

I would say that is an improvement.

But it the fact that they removed four highly telling sentences and noted their revision solely with a virtually unnoticeable footnote-- . . . I'd say that is just as misleading as my illustration, above, shows.

Supposing you are a footnote-reading scholar, however, at least you have the good probability of being able to tell what they have done to the text.


--I've made the entire screenshot, above, clickable, so you can go to the footnote as it appears on AiG's website.

Follow-Through on AiG/Spurgeon/John Holzmann/Mark Looy discussions

One of my readers here wrote to me wondering if, following my last post concerning Mark Looy and AiG, I had left any possible means for Mark and me to work out our differences:

If a person or organization does you public harm, is there any process by which they can come to you in private, to work things out? . . . What would it take for a person to communicate with you in private, with confidence their communication will be kept private by you?

Three things hit me immediately as a result of his questions.

1. If Mark has any interest in coming to some kind of mutual understanding, I want to work toward that end.
    
2. I want Mark to be able to feel free to come to me in private and know his private communication will be kept private.
    
3. I need to apologize.

As a result, I wrote Mark a letter and, among a whole lot of other things, wrote the following. This was "up top" in my letter to him:

Honestly, when I read your letter in which you requested that we meet soon--as I think my follow-up letter at least implied ("I feel badly that I didn't reply to your suggestions about meeting face to face, nor to your gracious offer of hospitality if I'm ever in the Cincinnati area (or can arrange to get there!).")--I really missed that request and certainly didn't understand it as any more than what I have said: a statement of personal preference, not any kind of expectation on your part. As you said, "Let's try to meet soon." And, "I hope this can be arranged soon. . . . I truly hope you can tour our museum one day soon . . . and communicate face to face as opposed to web postings and emails."

So I want to apologize for having misunderstood--and, as a result, for having completely overlooked--your expressed desires and hopes and/or your intentions in expressing those desires or hopes. I completely missed these things. Will you please forgive me for that insensitivity and failure on my part?

I would like to ask your forgiveness, too, for my emotional outburst following your response to my email and post. At this time, I don't believe the content of my reply was improper; but, certainly, the tone could have been far more gracious. And for that, too--for my failure to honor you in my manner of speech and in my tone--will you please forgive me?

I sent that letter late last Friday evening. Mark replied on Monday.

I was away at a conference all weekend . . . through Monday evening. And I have been heavily preoccupied with other matters. So I didn't get around to writing back to Mark till this afternoon.

I believe it is appropriate for me to note that Mark said some things in his response that I found quite encouraging. And, truly, I am encouraged.

As far as our correspondence itself, I wrote back to him,

I want to keep our correspondence, here, private, in an attempt to honor your preferences; however, I sense I need to make my apology to you more public because the faults I have admitted to you privately impact my audience as well as they do you. I believe I need to make my apologies public in the same way that my faults were public. And so I intend to post at least one more statement on my blog that will address what you and I are doing right now. I have no intention of revealing any secrets. But I do think I owe my readers an open declaration of my perspective on what I believe I have done wrong to date and what I am (and we--you and I--are) doing . . . i.e., discussing these matters privately in hopes of some form of reconciliation.

I "just" thought it was appropriate that you--my readers--should know what is transpiring.

Mark and I are talking. And I think we are making some progress.

Thank you.

On taking away in fine print what is stated in bold type

As I'm sure you can tell, if you've been following this blog for the last few days, I am pretty exercised over various behaviors by people associated with the organization known as Answers in Genesis (AiG).

When Mr. Looy first announced how AiG had "corrected" its revision of Charles Spurgeon's sermon so that they included a footnote that included a reference to the original text, I didn't look at the revised page. I simply "took his word for it" and said I was pleased that they had noted the change.

But the more I have thought about what he said they have done, the more I thought I should look directly at what, exactly, they did . . . to see it for myself. And now that I have looked at it and thought about it, I've become upset over the deception inherent in what they have done. It's just plain misleading (at least). Though I think it would be more accurate to call it dishonest.

Consider how they present the amended portion of the sermon. Can you see the substantive changes?

I can't.

But they are indicated. Kind of.

Oh. You say you are like 99% of all the people I know who rarely if ever take the time to read endnotes--especially endnotes that are referenced immediately after an obvious direct quote from Scripture--and, more particularly, a Scripture with which you are very familiar?

That's where the deception comes in (my opinion). It's like the online ads that imply--in standard-size print--that something is free . . . but then, in small print, below the response button, declare that, by pressing the button, you are agreeing to pay a $4.95 monthly "delivery charge" to be charged to your cell phone. . . .

"Hey! Wait a second!" --It's in that fine print where you'll find all the information you'd really wish you'd known.

So it is here, on the AiG website: the fact that this conservative Christian icon [Spurgeon] was clearly not a young-earth advocate: hidden, "below the fold," as it were. Way below the fold.

Internet advertisers who engage in such practices when it comes to financial transactions: such people can expect to be prosecuted for fraud.

I wonder if AiG and those who are aware of their behavior in this matter should think of their revisions in a similar light. Is it equivalently fraudulent?

Read the modified text and those portions of text closest to the portion that has been modified:

In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”^a Our planet has passed through various stages in creation, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation. It was entirely without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The Spirit came, and stretching his broad wings, bade the darkness disperse, and as he moved over it, all the different portions of matter came into their places, and it was no longer “without form, and void;” but became round like its sister planets, and moved, singing the high praises of God—not discordantly as it had done before, but as one great note in the vast scale of creation.

Can you see the alterations? Do you have any idea how it may have been altered? Would you be alarmed enough by the endnote marker to scan down to the end of the article in order to figure out where and how the alterations were made? I mean, really: Would you scan down there based on an endnote attached to an obviously unmodified direct quote from Scripture?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

Frankly, considering how this passage appears in its original context, I doubt I would scan down to read the endnote anyway--and I'm notorious (notorious with my wife, anyway!) for reading endnotes and footnotes and all such "scholarly" apparatus. She "never" reads those things; I "always" do.

But, honestly, I didn't even see the endnote marker the first time I read this passage . . . even when I knew it existed (i.e., yesterday morning, after people had told me the note existed and after I decided I wanted to see the note in context). It simply doesn't pop out at a reader.

But there is more I "have against" AiG in this context.

I believe they are disingenuous, at best, in indicating what exactly they have modified. Please: read the endnote and tell me what, exactly they did. Where did the indicated emendation take place?

Note

(a) [We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder; the only name you could give to the world then was, that it was a chaotic mass of matter; what it should be, you could not guess or define.] Bracketed text removed from the sermon. As brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did not understand the age issue. –Editor

And, of course, they didn't note how and where and what specific text they added in its place and/or substituted in certain other places.

No. I think for full transparency, they should have provided in-line notes right at the spot . . . or, if they really believe endnotes are so fair, then let them add their notes at the end, and let Spurgeon speak honestly for himeself.

He was no young-earth, 6,000-year-old-earth, creationist. . . . but you'd have to be quite the detail-oriented scholar to know it from the way they have modified his sermon!

Should be interesting . . .

Mark Looy, Chief Communications Officer for Answers in Genesis, has sought to clarify what happened that led to the events that inspired me to write my "Honesty . . . it's such a lonely word . . ." post yesterday morning (click on the link, then do a search on Mark Looy).

But in his comment, he didn't merely clarify the history. He pleaded for a more biblical response to disagreements or mistakes or failings such as what I and some others pointed out.

I am all about obeying Scripture. May it be!

I am all about confessing my sins and shortcomings when and as I need to.

I am also all about honesty and integrity.

And with that in mind, I invite you to read my response to Mr. Looy (scan a few comments down from Mr. Looy's comment to me).

I look forward to receiving his reply.

And if you have some suggestions about how I might have done better in the current situation, or how I might do better in the future, or what kind of personal "policy decisions" I might adopt to ensure a more biblical response in the future, I would be very grateful.

Honesty . . . it's such a lonely word . . .

To quote Billy Joel:

Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.

I am so disappointed!

Answers in Genesis claimed their "Charles Spurgeon-Reloaded" series would "update" Spurgeon's sermons, "not to change the meaning, but to make them more easily understood by modern readers." Moreover, they said, "the original text [would] also [be] included so that [readers] can see what was changed."

How disappointing, then, to find what they have done with only the 30th sermon they have "updated."

Due to limitations of the blogging software I'm using (I can't get any table cells to align vertically to the tops of their cells), I am breaking sentences apart into separate cells within the following table . . . so the actual quotes will align as closely as possible one with the other. However--as you will see if you visit the referenced sites, I have removed no sentences from either quotation, nor altered the wording in any way. I have added italics and bolding to call attention to the obvious tampering that AiG has done with the text of Spurgeon's sermon as preached:

Original	AiG's "Modernized" Version	John's Comments
In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."	In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”	Yes. Very minor update.
We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be--certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam.		!!!! Oh! Can you say "point-of-view censorship"?!? How about honoring Spurgeon enough at least to point out the massive emendation? Spurgeon's actual views about the age of the earth--views he expressed four years before Darwin's Origin of Species came out--didn't align with AiG's. "Too bad! Down the memory hole with them!" How incredibly dishonest, don't you think?!?
Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.	Our planet has passed through various stages in creation, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation.	Sorry! "Pass[ing] through various stages of existence" isn't quite the same as "pass[ing] through various stages in creation. Close, but not quite the same. Worse, however, "[giving] up the world to confusion" has a very different meaning than "initially creat[ing] the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation." Not even close. The original leaves plenty of room for a gap of millions of years (as is rather clear Spurgeon allowed for, based on what he actually said in the sentence two up from this one--the sentence AiG's "modernizers" so carefully removed!). But AiG's rephrasing leaves no such option. Anyone who would speak as AiG has made Spurgeon to speak would have to be a literal, six-day, young-earth creationist. But based on what he actually said, Spurgeon--at least at the time he preached this sermon--obviously believed in a world that was "certainly many millions of years" old. Is AiG being honest with the historical record? I don't think so!
He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder. The only name you could give to the world, then, was that it was a chaotic mass of matter; what it should be, you could not guess or define.		Oops! Another major emendation. And AiG expects us to believe this is a faithful rendition of Spurgeon's meaning? (Remember their promise "not to change the meaning"?)
It was entirely "without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The Spirit came, and stretching his broad wings, bade the darkness disperse, and as he moved over it, all the different portions of matter came into their places, and it was no longer "without form, and void;" but became round, like its sister planets, and moved, singing the high praises of God—not discordantly, as it had done before, but as one great note in the vast scale of creation.	It was entirely without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The Spirit came, and stretching his broad wings, bade the darkness disperse, and as he moved over it, all the different portions of matter came into their places, and it was no longer “without form, and void;” but became round like its sister planets, and moved, singing the high praises of God—not discordantly as it had done before, but as one great note in the vast scale of creation.	Ah! How nice! Back to our regular broadcast . . . having first eliminated one of those damning pieces of evidence that AiG's version of Christian theological history may not, in fact, be accurate.

A few days ago, in anticipation that AiG just might engage in this kind of dishonesty, but with sincere hopes and expectations that they wouldn't, I wrote,

If [AiG does, indeed, decide to engage in such behavior,] I go back to my original post that kind of sparked this entire discussion: Are you being treated like a child? Who controls what you get to hear?

Apparently, if you can't win your argument on the merits, AiG believes in winning through altering the historical record--as I intimated above, the old "memory hole" trick.

Oh. And in case, for some reason, you are unaware, the memory hole was not merely a literary device dreamt up by George Orwell. No. He got his idea from a master of such historical lies. Look at how Joseph Stalin dealt with inconvenient history. . . .

--Thanks to Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn for bringing this story to my attention. (See their comments yesterday in answer to my post in which I asked, Does old-earth/old-universe creationism=Liberalism? Atheism?)

I wrote my comments above before reading Tim's post on the same subject.

It's been a bit "heavy" here, lately. So . . . for a change of pace . . .

I ran across a post on the Sonlighters Club forums with a link to this video: "I Think My Wife's a Calvinist" . . .



The chorus:

I think my wife's a Calvinist, she only owns an ESV.
I'm always catching her reading Romans 10:28-30 . . . Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology.
She has a tattoo that says "I [heart] John Piper" in Greek. She likes Spurgeon more than she likes me.
And that's okay. I didn't choose her. She chose me. . . .

And some of the "verses":

She doesn't read the Beth Moore book I bought her; she'd rather read St. Augustine.
If she wasn't a Baptist preacher's daughter, I think she'd be Presbyterian.

She put me in the doghouse for liking the Emergent Church.
She won't fix my supper now 'cause I brought home a book by Norman Geisler.
If you ever met her you know she's not mean; she's really sweet . . .
Except when it comes to the little bitty matter of doctrine and theology.

I listened for a while, and as I listened, I read the comments on the YouTube webpage where you can view the video. Suddenly, it wasn't so funny anymore. I realized (or, rather, I was reminded) how divisive Calvin is (or can be).

Somehow, that got me looking at some of the other videos on the same page. And first one up: "Mariah Carey is a Calvinist?"

That caught my eye. Perhaps more than it might normally since I happened to read a brief bio of Carey last night when one of her songs came up on my Pandora "Sweet Vocal" station:

The best-selling female performer of the 1990s, Mariah Carey rose to superstardom on the strength of her stunning five-octave voice. . . . [A]n elastic talent who moved easily from glossy ballads to hip-hop-inspired dance-pop, she earned frequent comparison to rivals Whitney Houston and Celine Dion, but did them both one better by composing all of her own material.

!!!

I know nothing more about Carey or her music than what that particular article said. I don't know that I'm aware of a single song she sang. But to hear that she had (or has) a five-octave range: now, that's impressive!

Anyway. I decided to see what this particular videographer had to say about Carey's theology. And I had to stifle my laughter . . . since Sarita was still asleep in the next room, just feet away from where I'm sitting.

Enjoy!

The video begins rather slowly (but what can you do when the song itself, upon which the video is based, begins so slowly?). Eventually, too, you may feel it becomes repetitive. But if you're familiar with basic Calvinist doctrine, I expect this should bring a smile (at least).

Oh. And please forgive the author's misspelling of "Perseverance."

Does old-earth/old-universe creationism=Liberalism? Atheism?

Last night, I followed a few links . . . and links from links . . . from Tim Martin's paper, Homeschooling, the Genesis Debate, and Hypocrisy, and comments about the paper.

Tim, for example, included a link to a brief quotation from a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon preached on June 17, 1855--four years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species saw the light of day. The title of Spurgeon's sermon: The Power of the Holy Ghost.

Tim preceded the quote from Spurgeon with this comment:

[O]rganizations like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International, [promote the concept] that any belief in an old earth or universe is compromise with Bible-denying liberals and unbelieving atheistic Darwinists. For devoted young-earth advocates the situation is as simple as this: believe our interpretation of Genesis creation and Noah's flood, or side with the liberals and godless scientists. . . .

[But] the next time you witness this tactic, perhaps you can ask a very simple question. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a liberal evolutionist? Here is what he taught in one of his sermons:

. . . In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.

I found it so hard to believe that Spurgeon would say such a thing (after all, I, myself, have been listening quite carefully to the declarations of the young-earth creationists, and they really do make the kinds of claims Tim ascribes to them: that anyone who disagrees with their perspective has been, at minimum, influenced by godless liberals (if not having become one outright))--that I decided I had to look up Spurgeon's original for myself. (You can find it at www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0030.htm.)

What I found there astonished me even further, because it went beyond that which Tim quoted.

Truly.

It sounds as if Spurgeon himself was preaching a view of providential creation very similar to what I have been hearing and writing about, here, that I have now heard from the Haarsmas, Glover, and, now, Miller and friends.

Immediately preceding the passage that Tim quotes, I found this:

[T]he Spirit has manifested the omnipotence of his power in creation works; for though not very frequently in Scripture, yet sometimes creation is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father and the Son.

The creation of the heavens above us, is said to be the work of God's Spirit. This you will see at once by referring to the sacred Scriptures, Job 26, 13th verse, "By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent." All the stars of heaven are said to have been placed aloft by the Spirit, and one particular constellation called the "crooked serpent," is specially pointed out as his handiwork.

He looseth the bands of Orion; he bindeth the sweet influences of the Pleiades, and binds Arcturus with his suns.

He made all those stars that shine in heaven. The heavens were garnished by his hands, and he formed the crooked serpent by his might.

So, also, in those continued acts of creation which are still performed in the world; as the bringing forth of man and animals, their birth and generation. These are ascribed also to the Holy Ghost.

If you look at the 104th Psalm, at the 29th verse you will read, "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth." So that the creation of every man is the work of the Spirit; and the creation of all life, and all flesh-existence in this world, is as much to be ascribed to the power of the Spirit, as the first garnishing of the heavens, or the fashioning of the crooked serpent.

--I quote this latter passage because it seems to indicate that Spurgeon himself would have found little difficulty with the idea that God may have used "natural processes"--what I referred to, yesterday, as "proximate causes" (possibly, "even," "evolution"!)--to bring about His creation.

But back to the links I found from Tim's article.

"Virgil" commented:

When the folks at FreeRepublic.com are disagreeing with Ken Ham, you know that he has gotten out of control and he is in fact falling out of favor with his followers. He has played the "heresy" card one time too many if you ask me. . . .

--And he provided a link to an article on FreeRepublic.com, posted just yesterday, but referencing something Mr. Ham wrote some ten years ago: The god of an old earth: Does the Bible teach that disease, bloodshed, violence and pain have always been 'part of life'?

Writes the Free Republic author:

By declaring “the god of an old earth cannot be the God of the Bible” and “the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel,” he is accusing old-earth creationists of heresy.

Disagreements in the body of Christ are inevitable. And history has shown debate in the church can be edifying and unifying when it is conducted properly. This requires focusing on the things that unite us and avoid passing judgment on nonessential matters (Romans 14:1). But, that is not the spirit of Ham’s paper. By claiming old-earth creationism violates orthodox Christian teachings, he seeks to denigrate and marginalize it. That only serves to divide faithful Christians and prevent them from having fellowship together.

Ouch! --Kind of what I was referring to last night when I referenced Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 (where Jesus says, "he who is not against us is for us") v. Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 (where Jesus says, "He who is not with Me is against Me"). While not denying the latter in any way, I noted that "my predilection is to seek, hope, and believe the best, and to pursue the former [a general sense of cooperation], rather than the latter [a general sense of opposition]."

What disturbs me most grievously in the ongoing creation/evolution wars is this: that most partisans seem to enjoy exactly what my friend Tracy warns against in her article on the finest practices Christians should adopt when they engage in sacred-cow tipping. Sadly, too many of us take joy in tipping others' cows. We don't put pillows down for other people's cows. We don't give them time and space to realize that their cows are down. [Please read her entire (short) article to place these comments in context!]

I hope my ongoing discussion of these issues, here, will not cause my young-earth brothers and sisters to feel that I am abandoning them or taking pleasure in attempting to tip their cows! That is not my intention at all.

Rather, I am attempting simply to share what is going through my mind pretty much as it is going through my mind . . . and hoping you'll accompany me on my journey . . . provide warnings and counter-balancing perspectives, if and as you see the need, and, perhaps, point out additional vistas that I might otherwise miss.

*****
A postscript: I wrote to Tim, before I did my own search for Spurgeon's sermon, and commented, "He really said that in 1855--four years before Darwin's book came out?!?"

Tim replied: "The Spurgeon quote shocked me, too. A reader sent it in a few weeks ago. I thought it was funny because of the date. And, you probably haven't noticed, but AiG is releasing a 'modernized' version of Spurgeon's material. Jeff [Vaughn, Tim's co-author for Beyond Creation Science] investigated and found that they omitted that sermon!" Edited to Add, on 2/22/09 at 7:20 AM: I have now followed the link Jeff provided in his comment (Comment #2, below). At this moment, there is no evidence that AiG has omitted anything. If they are going to omit something, that should become obvious beginning on Thursday of this coming week--on February 26th--since that is the day on which, it appears, their Charles Spurgeon--Reloaded program should come to the particular sermon under question: Spurgeon's Sermon #30, The Power of the Holy Ghost.

If the charge is true, I go back to my original post that kind of sparked this entire discussion: Are you being treated like a child? Who controls what you get to hear? --Are we entering a new era of "Christian soviet thought-control" . . . in which one side attempts to control the debate by censoring what the majority of people can hear from those they view as opponents?