Over the past month, I really haven’t written anything on this blog. I’ve just been too tired, and quite frankly, too depressed, to write anything. The social and political upheaval that has gripped America these days has just really been tough for me to process. As I briefly mentioned in my 5-Year Anniversary post, I believe there is a brewing “war of fundamentalisms” going on in our country in general, and within the American brand of Protestant Christianity in particular, and it is sad to see.
On one side, you have the right-wing, ultra-fundamentalists groups like Answers in Genesis, who have, for all intents and purposes, wedded their brand of Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism to the Republican Party and have rooted that brand of religion into a bizarre “Gospel” that says all the “answers” are in a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11. And any Christian who disagrees is branded a “compromiser” and a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who bows at the pagan altar of modern science and evolutionary theory. As soon as a YECist hears you aren’t a YECist, they project on you every evil image of the most secular, perverted liberal boogeyman they can think of: You probably promote homosexuality, transgenderism, Marxism, the Green New Deal, and a host of other things. For the better part of three years or so, I wrote regularly on the dangers of YECism and how it was perverting the Gospel in a number of different ways.
On the other side, though, I’ve come to see that there is a rather strident “fundamentalism” that has come about as a reaction (or rather, over-reaction) to that right-wing brand of YECism fundamentalism. This kind of fundamentalism isn’t so much rooted in bad science or bad biblical exegesis of Genesis 1-11, but it shows itself to be just as politically motivated, albeit on the different edge of the political spectrum. I’ll explore this a bit more later in the post.
For now, though, I want to briefly comment on two more recent articles from Answers in Genesis. One is by Terry Mortenson, entitled, “Old Earth Creationism—Is It a Sin?” The other is Ken Ham’s most recent blog post: “‘Oh I Believe in Genesis’ Sing Two Scholars…Who Don’t Believe in Genesis.”
Old Earth Creationism—Is It a Sin?
As for Mortenson’s article, the main question he brings up and attempts to answer is, “Is it possible to walk in fellowship with God while being wrong on some biblical issues?” I can answer that quite easily: YES. No Christian is right on every biblical issue—if being wrong on some biblical issues disqualified us from being able to walk in fellowship with God, we’re all screwed. But of course, we all know where Mortenson is going with this, so he has to somehow steer things to how believing in Old Earth Creationism or Theistic Evolution really pushes any so-called Christians to the edge, where God is about to say, “Be gone! I never knew you!”
Here’s how he does it. First, he says that intentionally deceiving others is clearly sinful. But what about Christians who are teaching OEC or TE, but who aren’t intentionally trying to deceive others? Well, sorry, sinners, but Mortenson has decreed, “Yet doing wrong or teaching what is false, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, is sin.” Clear enough? Intentionally deceiving others is sinful…and teaching anything false is just as sinful!
And with that, Mortenson says, Christians are to confess their sins. And since teachers will come under a stricter judgment if they teach what is false, their expression of repentance needs to be even greater. What does that exactly mean? Well, near the end Mortenson hints that private confession of sins probably isn’t good enough for false teachers who teach OEC or TE—they probably need public correction. After all, as Mortenson says, teachers of OEC and TE have led many astray, have contradicted the clear teaching of Scripture, have severely damaged the Bible’s teaching about death, and have (unknowingly) assaulted the character of God—undermined the Word of God and subverted the Gospel (despite sincere intentions).
So yeah, these people need to repent and publicly correct their error!
And there you have it—the litmus test for whether or not you are a Christian (or at least whether or not you are a false teacher who will incur severe judgment!) is whether or not you interpret Genesis 1-11 as literal history, tally up the genealogies therein, and come up with about 6,000 years! …just like Jesus says!
NT Wright and Francis Collins Don’t Believe Genesis
Ham’s recent article takes aim at NT Wright and Francis Collins, particularly the song they recently sung for a BioLogos presentation. Now, in all honesty, I felt their song about Genesis was quite cheesy—I’m not a fan. But Ken Ham didn’t find it cheesy—he was deeply offended! And so, he posted some of the lyrics and the proceeded to show how deceitful they were:
Genesis, Earth and Heaven in a cosmic kiss
Evolution must have been like this, O I believe in Genesis
Did you notice? They said they believe in evolution! Well, says Ham, “Genesis and evolution don’t go together! So if someone says they “believe in Genesis,” but they also believe in evolution, then they don’t really believe in Genesis. They’ve taken man’s ideas from outside Scripture and added them into the Bible. Millions of years and evolution don’t come from the Bible—they come from the mind of fallen man, and N.T. Wright, Francis Collins, and others are using those ideas to interpret Scripture. Really, they’re setting themselves up as the authority over God and his Word, and they are a blight on the church.”
DNA. Shaping creatures from the dust and clay.
Double helix in the Milky Way. Oh, Genesis meant DNA
Did they say DNA shaped creatures from dust and clay? Sorry! GOD DID, you blasphemers! Granted, Ham didn’t literally call them “blasphemers,” but he did say, “This idea is, quite frankly, blasphemous!”
How he made it all, fourteen billion years ago.
Wisdom, grace, and love, for he spoke and it was so.
Ham’s response? Sorry, six days, not millions of years! And millions of years of death and decay isn’t a good way to create! That doesn’t sound too wise to me!
And when they sing in the last line of the song about looking forward to the New Jerusalem, Ham quips, “Well, if God is going to restore things back to how they were in the beginning, then to be consistent, Wright and Collins should be singing about looking forward to a future of death, bloodshed, violence, disease, and suffering just as it’s been for millions of years. But of course they don’t because they are inconsistent in their theology!”
Then, in keeping with Mortenson’s article, Ham ends by saying, “Wright and Collins need to repent of their compromise with the pagan religion of the day, repent of not believing God’s Word, and repent of encouraging others to compromise God’s Word.”
There you have it, the typical litany of AiG: YECism is the foundation to the Gospel, and therefore if you believe in OEC or TE, you may say you’re a Christian, but…pagan religion, blasphemy, false teachers incur stricture judgment! Just recently, I got into an online debate with a militant YECist who added some new condemnations: modern science was witchcraft and OEC/TE was the equivalent of Baal worship.
What’s the Problem…and What Does Trump Have to do With This?
It should be obvious. Whether you personally believe the universe is 6,000 years old or 14 billion years old, it doesn’t really matter to me. I’m convinced it is 14 billion years old, so I think 6,000 years is wrong, but the issue simply is not a fundamental issue to the Christian faith. Heck, it is a complete NON-issue. But the moment you set that issue up as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (as AiG and many YECist clearly do), you’ve taken a wrong turn and things get really dark really quick. The over the top condemnations say it all. Placing yourself in the position of judge and jury when it comes to another person’s faith over the issue of the age of the earth is, quite simply, really jacked up. When I first got involved in the creation/evolution debate, being called a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and a “compromiser” really got to me and hurt me. I couldn’t believe people who called themselves Christians could be so heartless and judgmental.
Now, when I hear those things from militant YECists, I laugh at them and let their insults roll off my back. But what I’m having trouble with now is trying to come to grips with how that mentality is rearing its head in current political discourse. Mind you, I joined the Orthodox Church back in 2006 and am not technically an Evangelical anymore, but I still know many Evangelicals to be good, God-fearing Christians. I don’t “hate Evangelicalism” or have any kind of political axe to grind against them.
Now, I’m not going to start a political debate at the end of this post, but I just have to say this, just get it off my chest. It has been bothering me for some time.
If you are politically conservative and plan to vote for Trump because you think, despite his faults, he’s the better option—then vote for Trump. I’m not going to make your political choices a litmus test for whether or not you are a Christian. And if you plan to vote for Biden because you think he’s the better choice—then vote for Biden. I’m not going to make your political choices a litmus test for whether or not you are a Christian. But the moment you start accusing conservative Evangelicals or more progressive believers of “not really being Christians,” in my mind, I’m putting you in the camp of that same kind of “fundamentalist mentality” that Ken Ham has, where you are setting up a particular scientific or political stance up as the real cornerstone of your faith—and I’m sorry, whatever that is, it ain’t the Gospel.
Now, I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, but I never thought he was Hitler. I viewed him as a loud-mouth %$@$#, not as some Russian agent or diabolical madman. And it is just devastating to me to see so many Christians just getting swept up into a conspiratorial fever-dream over the man. He’s just a man. He’s not Lucifer. And if I read one more article or blog post by a Christian, equating Trump to the evil kings of Israel, or “Trumpism” to Nazism, or Evangelicals who vote for Trump to pre-Civil War Southern slave owners who go to revival meetings only to come home to their plantations to beat their slaves—I am going to scream. Stop it. Please, LITERALLY, for the LOVE OF CHRIST, STOP IT! You are spewing the exact same kind of judgmentalism and venom as the worst kind of militant YECist (or militant atheist, for that matter).
The biggest threat to my faith isn’t any intellectual doubts, and it isn’t because of troublesome parts of the Bible, and it isn’t because of the black spots throughout Christian history. The biggest threat to my faith, the biggest thing that tempts me to chuck it all, is when I see people who call themselves Christians get so militantly fanatical about issues that are not central to the Christian faith, that they end up blocking everything else out. They view everything and judge everyone through the lens of that one issue. And the more I see that coming from Christians, the more I feel in exile from everything and everyone.
Obviously, that doesn’t mean you can’t debate rigorously over those scientific and political issues. I do that quite a bit. And even though I, being human, sometimes get too angry and regret saying a few things here and there, I’ve never questioned someone’s faith simply because they had a different view than mine. And even though I left Evangelicalism 14 years ago, I will ALWAYS think it is wrong to stereotype all of them as the worst caricature of a Robert Jeffress-Paula White-Jim Bakker Trump worshipper.
Long story short—that hateful and judgmental mentality that so many of us see coming from YECists like Ken Ham…we had better be vigilant, or else we might find ourselves displaying that same hateful and judgmental mentality in other areas of life. And I can guarantee you, it’s not the mind of Christ.
Is Pres. Trump Hitler incarnate? Of course not. Are conditions in America today comparable to those that gave rise to Nazi Germany? Yes.
Experts (historians) who understand the political, social, and religious setting during those years see similarities. A healthy concern for history repeating itself rooted in reasonable assessment is wisdom, not passing judgement. You yourself have launched warning shots aimed at Black Lives Matter. Yet, BLM leaders are not the ones in power.
This is a list posted at the Holocaust museum detailing the signs:
-powerful & continuing nationalism
-disdain for human rights
-identification of enemies as a unifying cause
-supremacy of the military
-controlled mass media
-obsession with national security
-religion & government intertwined (hello – religion & gov merged!)
-corporate power protected
-labor power suppressed
-disdain for intellectuals & the arts
-obsession with crime & punishment
-rampant cronyism & corruption
-fraudulent elections
Which of these characteristics has not been exhibited at least to some degree, with others more severe, within the last few years – decades even? Name just one and I will respond with examples.
President Trump is simply a symptom and ends to a means for collective power. Power is not always righteous. It is not hateful to be mindful of that!
Pres. Trump has already eluded to the fact that he will not concede at election time (straight from his own words – not a media spin).
I do not believe that we are headed for the atrocities seen in Europe decades ago. Yet, it doesn’t make me non-Christian to be worried about the future of our country, just as you are only from a different perspective.
I’ve launched warning shots about BLM because (1) the founders are self-avowed Marxists, and Marxism brought about much more death in the 20th century than even Nazism, and (2) there has been a whole lot of rioting and destruction in the name of BLM over the past 2 months, and it seems that one political party who very much might be in power in the Fall, is fully supporting, or at least excusing, such behavior.
As for the “Are the conditions in America today like those that gave rise to Nazism in Germany?” I just disagree. Who thinks Trump controls the media? All we hear 24/7 from the main stream media is criticism, where journalists who should be objective are actively taking sides. I won’t go through the entire list, but I could probably push back on all of them. But about fraudulent elections–we’ll wait for the Durham Report, but it sure seems that there was a concentrated effort by the previous administration to undo the previous election. That should be alarming to everyone. Whether or not one likes Trump, the fact is he won. And if there were those who tried to subvert the will of the people and subvert the election, that would be the biggest threat to our institutions than anything else.
This trope that Trump won’t accept the results of the election is tiresome. That is exactly what the Dems were saying in 2016. And when he won, what did they do? Immediately called for his impeachment, said the election was rigged, and put into motion the whole “Trump is a Russian asset” propaganda. I can’t believe anyone is falling for that scare-tactic again.
What I am concerned about is how many believers of the progressive brand ARE making this election a litmus test of whether or not one is a true Christian, just like YECists do with the age of the earth. It is just inflammatory and wrong to equate ALL Evangelicals with white slave-owners, and things like that. That is horrible.
Mortensosn saying that intentionally deceiving others is clearly sinful is the depth of irony. Organisations like AiG are there purely to pump out false and deceptive propaganda!
The heart of Christianity is to love God and love others. We may be passionate about things, but our discussions have to be undergirded by love. I’ll admit that’s really hard when someone as awful as Trump seems to be sending this country in such bad directions, but it’s what we’re required to do as Christians. Thanks for the reminder.
Extremists on both sides have been crying “wolf!” for a long time. Ever since Joseph Smith’s Mormons in the 1830s, William Miller’s Seventh Day Baptists in the 1840s and Charles Taze Russell’s Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1880s certain Evangelical groups have been decrying the soon-to-be “late great planet Earth.” Thus for well over one hundred years the Evangelical prophets of doom have almost continuously told us the sky was/is falling. My dad seriously thought Bill Clinton might just be the antichrist (I guess that makes Hilary the woman riding the scarlet beast from Revelation 17). Many Evangelicals seemed to think Pres. Obama was going to start a jihad to convert us all into Muslims. Meanwhile the world steadily plugged along.
The liberal prophets of doom, while too sophisticated to believe in a literal antichrist (or really anything literal in scripture) nevertheless feel that if one existed it would’ve been Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or Donald Trump. Fifteen years ago they fretted over the very real possibility that Mel Gibson’s film *The Passion of the Christ* was going to spark a wave of antisemitism across the US reminiscent of Kristallnacht in 1938 Germany. Now they seriously fret over a coming global apocalypse caused by anthropocentric global warming because first Al Gore and now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Leonardo DiCaprio have assured them that by 2030 all biological life as we know it on Earth will be extinct if we don’t all “go green ” immediately. Honestly, if one more polar bear dies (or transgender person can’t find a restroom) they’ll seriously have to move to Mars.That and they worry that Trump and his Republicans steal liberal babies from their cribs, replacing them with right-wing changelings (who can then ride out the coming global apocalypse). Meanwhile the world steadily plugs along.
Seriously, though. Prophets of doom on both sides have been forecasting the end of civilization for a very long time. Christians need to be wise as serpents yet innocent as doves. Unfortunately I don’t see as much of that as I used to.
Pax.
Lee.
Thank you for holding up the mirror. As human beings, we are too easily swept into one fashionable fear or another. Another helpful thing to remember is that “perfect love casts out fear.” (1 John 4:18)
Mr. Anderson, I have just run into a video claiming that the Bible actually approves of abortions. The video is called “The Bible is Pro-Choice” by Secular Talk. The host, Kyle Kulinski, takes some verses from the Bible to demonstrate that God condones and takes part in abortions. Given that you’re a biblical scholar, what is your take on this? Does the host actually demonstrate that the Bible is pro-choice or is he just ripping random quotes out of context?
Well, a short answer would be it seems that guy is, at the very least, misrepresenting the biblical text. I’m guessing he’s pointing to the directions regarding the “water that brings a curse,” when a man suspects his wife has been unfaithful?
At the same time, the Bible doesn’t really specifically address the issue in any real way. What we do know, though, is that from the very earliest days of the Church, abortion was condemned and seen as murder.
I see. I thought it was weird that the host would for some reason select a passage of Hosea to be representative of God performing abortion when the whole book Hosea is, I think, merely about Hosea’s prayers to God, not God do anything himself. Or could I be mistaken on that?
What passage in Hosea was it?
Dr. Anderson,
I’ve been going through the Lost conquest of Israel and I understand using the term genocide is unfair. However, you have stated that the methods in ANE warfare can be questioned. The text describes removing the Canaanites identity and that does include children. In some of his lectures, Dr. John Walton has answered that yes children were killed.
Dr. Richard Hess has argued that the places attacked were fotresses and that the translation that reads men, women and children is incorrect. Rather the men, women and children should be translated to from men to women. Children who were caught in these battles was an unfortunate event.
Nevertheless, I think the idea of innocent children being killed in the flood or those battles is still troubling. How do you deal with this9?
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
The programming nerd
Source
http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/genocide-bible
Sorry, I forgot about answering this.
Okay…
(1) As far as the Flood goes, I don’t think Genesis 1-11 is historical to begin with. I think the Flood story is a variation of other ancient Near Eastern flood stories, with the major difference being in THOSE stories, the flood happens because the gods are petty and immoral, whereas in Genesis 6-8, it happens because people are evil and God is just and righteous. That’s the point. So, I don’t worry about children being killed in the flood, anymore than I worry about children being killed in a science fiction movie, when the “good guys” blow up the planet where the bad guys are.
(2) As far as battles and war, well, as Heiser says, that is just a reality. In wars, people (including children) die. When the Allies made their way to Berlin, or when they bombed Dresden, I’m sure innocent children were killed. Still, we don’t call stopping Hitler bad because of that. The witness of the Bible on the matter of war, in my opinion, is that God can still work his will, even in war. That is just the reality we have to live with.
Dr Anderson,
Thank you for answering my question. I understand the Canaanite question can be understood as removing the identity. I do understand that the wars should not be understood as some Blitzkrieg style of war. I understand that these wars should be understood in their ANE style of warfare. However, passages like 1 Samuel 15 suggest that children were part of the target. Unless, you mean that the particular passage was to remove their identity or the fortresses that OT scholar Dr. Richard Hess were targeted. Even Numbers 31 describes young boys being killed and the non virgins were taken as war booty.
My question is, as an OT scholar how do you understand these passages Dr. Anderson?
Dr. Anderson,
Your not under any obligation to reply but I would like tonhear your thoughts on my above question but I will just repeat it here.
Thank you for answering my question. I understand the Canaanite question can be understood as removing the identity of the culture. I do understand that the wars should not be understood as some Blitzkrieg style of war. I understand that these wars should be understood in their ANE style of warfare. However, passages like 1 Samuel 15 suggest and numbers 31 that children were part of the target. Unless, you mean that the particular passage was to remove their identity or the fortresses that OT scholar Dr. Richard Hess were targeted. Even Numbers 31 describes young boys being killed and the non virgins were taken as war booty.
My question is, as an OT scholar how do you understand these passages Dr. Anderson?
Well,
In short, I suppose I view it either as just the acceptable war practices at the time, or later writers just projecting that idea backward. In other words, in the actual battles, people were killed (children included), as happens in probably any war throughout history. Yet later writers said children were “targeted” as if to say that ultimately the entire thing was God’s plan. Ultimately that is true, of course–God IS in control of everything, after all. But if we were to travel back in time, would we have seen Moses actually tell the Israelite soldiers, “Kill the babies!”? …I have a hard time believing that.
Dr. Anderson,
Thank you for answering my questions. There is something I want to know regarding the biblical hermaneutics that you are suggesting because you wrote:
Yet later writers said children were “targeted” as if to say that ultimately the entire thing was God’s plan. Ultimately that is true, of course–God IS in control of everything, after all. But if we were to travel back in time, would we have seen Moses actually tell the Israelite soldiers, “Kill the babies!”? …I have a hard time believing that
Your method of hermaneutics seems to suggest that the Israelites in 1 Sam 15 and numbers 31 were writing down history backwards and that children were not part of the target. It seems you are suggesting that God was somehow involved without speaking these orders. Wouldn’t this type of hermaneutics also be granted to other verses where God “spoke” like the near sacrifice of Isaac where God ordered Abraham to sacrifice though I understand a point was being taught in this story? How do scholars like yourself decide where God spoke in this verse but not the other verse?
Other than Dr. John Walton’s book Israel’s conquest. Which books or papers would you recommend a layman programmer like myself to read on OT violence and biblical inspiration in the OT?
Thank you in advance Dr. Anderson and I hope you get back to the book reviews and academic articles this fall.
Yours Sincerely,
The programming nerd
Hello there Dr. Anderson,
I understand you are a busy man but I would really appreciate your thoughts here. I will repeat my question below.
There is something I want to know regarding the biblical hermaneutics that you are suggesting because you wrote:
Yet later writers said children were “targeted” as if to say that ultimately the entire thing was God’s plan. Ultimately that is true, of course–God IS in control of everything, after all. But if we were to travel back in time, would we have seen Moses actually tell the Israelite soldiers, “Kill the babies!”? …I have a hard time believing that
Your method of hermaneutics seems to suggest that the Israelites in 1 Sam 15 and numbers 31 were writing down history backwards and that children were not part of the target. It seems you are suggesting that God was somehow involved without speaking these orders. Wouldn’t this type of hermaneutics also be granted to other verses where God “spoke” like the near sacrifice of Isaac where God ordered Abraham to sacrifice though I understand a point was being taught in this story? How do scholars like yourself decide where God spoke in this verse but not the other verse?
Other than Dr. John Walton’s book Israel’s conquest. Which books or papers would you recommend a layman programmer like myself to read on OT violence and biblical inspiration in the OT?
Thank you in advance Dr. Anderson and I hope you get back to the book reviews and academic articles this fall.
Yours Sincerely,
The programming nerd