In the post-modern world in which we live, the call, loud and clear in science circles has been to reject God, reject religion and build a view of the world based on logic and science. It is been remarkably successful since the industrial revolution. I think the premise is, science must be free of cultural and religious bias and so has built in safe-guards in its methodology to help assure that premise. It has gotten so bad, Gman, that revisionists are busily writing the bible out of all history. Many archaeologists and historians are claiming, the exodus never happened, the patriarchs and Moses were fictional, the united kingdom of Israel never existed, the tales of Joshua, Gideon, Elijah, are just fictionalized accounts, the entire bible was written during the Babylonian exile, the flood was a redaction of Akkadian mythologies, Jesus (if he even existed) never performed miracles and he certainly did not rise from the dead.
These are certainly serious and important issues, however they are hardly new nor do they tie into the post-modern era as anything particularly new, although you could argue the the post-modern era is in part the fruits of this modern-skepticism which finds its roots more in the 1800's with it strengthening through the 1900's.
I think perhaps there may be some confusing of "science" circles with the overall push in western intellectualism toward materialistic atheism. Science is a word that is used broadly and in different contexts can be used by some to encompass this greater movement that moves beyond pure physical science and extends its materialistic assumptions into metaphysics, religion and philosophy and in so doing challenges the very existence of God.
Science in the narrower sense as a method designed to better understand the physical world is a very effective tool and in fact was developed and influenced to a very great extent by Christians who rejoiced in the knowledge it gave and saw it as a wonderful reflection upon the genius and wisdom of God in how he created and set this world in motion.
Liberal Biblical Criticism certainly has contributed to this sad development. Again, though, this is not a particularly new development.
That is what its all about, Gman. We need a new approach to science. A way to discover Gods creation which does not reject him but rather builds Him into the most fundemental methodology. Because this doesn't exist, OEC fails and YEC fails because both try to solve the problems using anti-christian disciplines. Many here think they are doing this by back-filling the holes in science with God. It isn't working. Canuckster, speaks somewhere about not subjecting the word of god to ridicule (a paraphrase of Augustine). Who here thinks the revised science of OEC is not doing that? Look at what the skeptics and atheists are saying about OEC and YEC science. They are laughing it to scorn.
If you examine the history of science and its development the issue isn't with science itself which again, narrowly defined is simply a method based in logic to better understand the physical universe around us. As such it provides knowledge which in an of itself is value neutral. It is what we do with that knowledge that determines the impact it will have on people, the creation itself and whether we bring glory to the God who created us.
For example, nuclear physics can produce a bomb of such magnitude that millions of innocent people can be killed, or it can drive a power plant that provides energy on the same scope. The determining factor as to what it will do is in the hands of the people who decide how to apply it.
The idea of sealing off from the world in the manner I think I am hearing here is not particularly new. The evangelical Church in the western world pretty much followed this strategy from the 1920's in the wake of the Scopes Trial when the Church was subjected to a huge amount of ridicule in the media and society (despite winning the court case) and it wasn't until the 1970's that the Evangelical Church began to seek to influence the society around us again in such areas as politics and education. Francis Schaeffer is one of the voices that has helped to lead many away from this retreat mode.
We're currently in a mode where Evangelicals are beginning to exert influence in some of the areas that were abdicated from earlier, and not surprisingly it is not being met with favor from those who have had the field to themselves and exercised control and influence over our education system, political system and other culteral mores.
My appeal to the Augustinian quote is not to advocate compromise to avoid all ridicule or criticism. That would fly counter to what Christ himself has told us that as His followers we will face persecution and ridicule and even martyrdom. Where I believe Augustine's caution applies is to exercise Biblical and Godly wisdom to recognize those issues that are cardinal from those that may be important but which allow for and maybe even require some flexibility to determine whether new information requires some adjustment in a rigid hermeneutic.
That is always a dangerous and difficult time for the Church because rightly, there is a resistance to change in these types of matters. We should not be quick or eager to retreat from that which the Church has traditionally understood the Bible to say. We should however seek to be discerning to be sure it is the Bible actually saying something and not our prooftexting a common belief when the Bible itself, when delivered and understood may have been asserting no such thing.
The best historical example I can offer of similar issues relates to Galileo and the result of that was that the Church added a new hermeneutic which allowed that there was an element of perspective that had to be recognized in some of the passages that previously were taken to support the idea that the sun rotated around the earth. It recognized that from the surface of the earth it appears to the case and so the idea of the sun rising and setting and moving was an accurate portrayal of how it appears, but that it was wrong to apply that language to make a scientific conclusion.
So, I am sympathetic to much of what you have to say, but for me there is a significant amount of tempering to that position based upon the context of how we arrived at this point.
It's one thing to say all the complexity of the arguments and the implications require simplifying the issues and getting back to spiritual and Biblical basics. It's quite another thing as to how you establish what those are.
The most common error (and I'm using that word carefully) that I observe is one of calling for a simple literal hermeneutic and to read the text for what it says, or as you are saying here I think, as a child might read it grasping on to the simple truth of the Bible and the Gospel.
I praise God that the Gospel message is that simple and can be grasped by a child. That's why I append the last quote that I do in my signature by the way. "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." That's the most important thing and it requires only childlike faith to receive.
When you begin to speak of issues like the age of the earth, I think diligence, study and wisdom are all required in approaching the text.
Reading for the simple literal meaning in an English Bible that is translated from another language and separated by 2,000 years or more from its historical and cultural context requires some care to be sure what we are reading and taking from the text is in fact what is there and that we are not reading our own preconceived biases inadvertantly into the text.
I'm sure you're familiar with many examples where this can happen.
When Jesus speaks of it being easier for an camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, we get an immediate picture of what that means. Our picture however is very different from what those listening to Jesus at that place and time would get. For them, the eye of a needle could be a sewing or a surgical needle, but it also was the common term for a small opening gate in the Jerusalem Wall where pedestrians could walk into the city. A camel would be too large if it were encumbered with packs so the only way for that camel to go through would be to take all the things of and come through unencumbered.
That's an example where the meaning isn't lost completely without that understanding, but certainly it illustrates why it is important for us as Evangelicals who hold the Word of God high, to seek to learn and know these things so that the message is not compromised.
Unfortunately in the past, Evangelicals have looked at things like Biblical criticism (and I mean criticism in the sense of tools, not a plan to tear the Bible down), science, philosophy and they've seen how they've been used by many to tear down faith and God and they conclude it's better to just retreat into the Church and not engage.
I don't believe that is to be our response.
Christ met people where they were in all areas of their lives. Paul went into the marketplaces and the major areas of discourse and presented the Gospel and applied his learning and knowledge to make a case for the Gospel.
In the end, it is the power of the Word of God itself and the Holy Spirit that accomplishes God's purposes. But we have a part to play and if we hold that Bible to be true we should be unafraid to test it and try it and see that it is true. We must be careful however, to delineate between those issues that are cardinal and not to be compromised and those areas where important issues may be in play but not to overstate what the Bible itself doesn't say.
I wish I had a perfect measure to know where all of that is, but I don't. I do have the Bible itself, the presence of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of other Christians today and in History to use and every tool should be used properly.
I for one am not seeking to beat you up. I think we may be speaking past one another in some regards though and maybe this will help to clarify.
Blessings,
Bart
!? The very fact that He could/can call upon any of His creations and they will obey Him would not testify to His glory and power? Gee...He's only the creator of the universe!! Come on! AS much as biochemistry used to drive me nuts, the very idea that God created mitochondria, chloroplast, the Calvin cycle, the Kreb's cycle, ATP synthase!!! reveals His glory and power! I find it stunning that you would demand that He create in only one way simply because you think any other way diminishes His glory...If He choose to create in a series of acts that to use seems like a process, then so be it. The absence of statements to that effect in scripture does not negate the possibility. 