The Blinne Blog

Fair Play

Chuck Colson opined concerning fair play in the Kansas evolution controversy.

Americans believe in fair play. If a football or baseball team doesn’t show up, it forfeits the game. If the defense lawyer in a trial puts on no case, the judge is likely to declare a summary judgment to the plaintiff. You play by the rules, or you don’t play.

So why have so many evolutionists apparently decided that the rules don’t apply to them?

This pattern is surfacing once again in Kansas, where you may remember a huge controversy broke out a few years ago, and the evolutionists squashed any other teaching in Kansas.

 

This time the new state board of education is holding hearings to consider revisions that a group of scientists and educators has called for. These would allow Darwin’s theory of evolution to be taught in schools, but they would permit scientific challenges to Darwinism to be taught as well.

The principles espoused by Mr. Colson are good ones. Playing fair in the midst of controversy is a very good principle. Indeed, it is a Christian one. Now for the rest of the story. Keith Miller gave the following explanation for the boycott of the Kansas hearings.

A short explanation for the decision by the scientific community throughout Kansas to not participate in the hearings.

The hearings were set up completely outside of the established process for revising science standards.  The standards revision committee has been working for nearly a year to evaluate and revise the standards.  They have received expert advise and input from both the scientific and science education community throughout the process.  The standards were posted for public and professional input and public forums were held around the state to obtain further input.  Some of the best science teachers in the state were on the standards committee.  When the committee was established the policy was set that any changes to the standards had to be by consensus, or if not, by at least a two thirds majority vote.

The result was an excellent set of revised standards that were submitted to the Board.  At this point the normal procedure would be to send the recommended standards out for external review.  However, the Board majority set them aside and supported another set of revised standards written outside of the process by an 8 member minority of the committee (the "Minority Report").  Those 8 members were all appointed to the committee by the anti-evolution members of the Board.  The Minority Report was written through meetings that were not open meetings and were not conducted through the committee process or in accordance with open meetings law.  The first Minority Report was not submitted through the commissioner's process.  John Calvert founder of the ID Net, who took the lead in writing the minority report and pushing for the hearings, appointed himself and had no official standing.  The Board members who voted for the hearings were the same individuals that had appointed the 8 members to the committee.  The three subcommittee members who are acting as jury for the hearings all hold anti-evolutionary views and publicly stated their support for the minority report before the hearings were ever held.

Thus the reasons that the scientific community has not participated are: 1) that both writing of the Minority Report, and the hearings themselves have occurred in violation of the procedure established for the standards revision, 2) that the scientific and science education community already has had extensive input into the standards and that input has been ignored in favor of the Minority Report, and 3) the hearings were not to inform the Board's decision as the position of the Board members had been publicly stated before the hearings were held.  The scientific community refused to give credibility to this process.

The scientific community in Kansas is now unified and activated in away that I have never seen in the 15 years that I have been here.  Even more so than in 1999 when we went through this before.  There is a growing understanding that the problem we face is a long term one that will require a long term effort at public education about both the nature and limitations of science.  Virtually all the science organizations in the state now recognize how important it is to publicly and clearly reject the false science/faith conflict or warfare view.  The religious community is also becoming activated.  I think that his is one of the very positive outcomes of this mess.  The Kansas scientific community is sending out a very unified voice that evolutionary science is not based on an atheistic or materialistic worldview, and that it is not in any necessary conflict with religious faith.

So, to take Colson's courtroom analogy further what do you do when a side in a conflict cheats? If the other side resigns in protest are they being unfair and do they as a result forfeit any future appeal?

 

Evangelical Scientist Fights for Evolution

Keith B. Miller, a geology professor at Kansas State University, is a leading defender of Evolution in the debate over Evolution versus so-called Intelligent Design before the Kansas State School Board. What makes Keith Miller stand out is that he is not an atheist, but rather is an Evangelical. Dr. Miller is also a member of the American Scientific Affiliation, a group of Christians who are working scientists.

The Boston Globe had the following piece on  Miller:

TOPEKA, Kan. -- As scientists who advocate the new ''intelligent design" theory stepped to the microphone at an auditorium here last week to argue that schools should teach doubts about evolution, a 49-year-old geologist sporting Birkenstock sandals and an early-Beatles haircut sat quietly in an aisle seat in the back row.

The man is an evangelical Christian who says he was ''called by God to be a geologist." But Keith B. Miller, a Kansas State University professor, is also an ardent defender of evolution -- and thus one of established science's most effective weapons in the battle to keep intelligent design, creationism, and other attacks on evolution out of the nation's public schools.

As the theory of evolution pioneered by Charles Darwin comes under assault in communities from Kansas to Pennsylvania to Georgia, Miller carries a message that plays especially well here: Faith, even fundamental Christian faith, is not at odds with Darwin.

''I say I believe God [created life], and I want to find out how," Miller said. ''They say, 'God did it; end of discussion.' "

The Kansas state school board has been ground zero for the evolution debate since 1999, when religious conservatives first drew international attention by having evolution downplayed in the school curriculum. Last week, the antievolution forces were back, arguing in hearings concluding this week that doubts about Darwin be inserted into school standards.

This time, Darwin's critics insist they are not religiously motivated creationists, but are scientists who believe that certain things in the universe, including human life, are too complex to be explained by natural causes and must be the product of an intelligent creator.

They call this theory ''intelligent design," and while they resist publicly declaring that a Christian God's hand is at work, they also suggest that proponents of a key tenet of evolutionary theory -- that changes over time can result in new species -- are atheists or secular humanists.

Stung by these charges, scientists who support evolution are trying to demonstrate that faith and science can exist side by side. ''I want to dispel their extreme worldview that there is any warfare between science and the Christian faith," Miller said.

Miller has been showing science and faith do not conflict long before this particular conflict erupted.

Still, the political winds have shifted to the right in Kansas. The state has a long tradition of moderate, economic-driven Republicanism. Now, religious conservatives are on the rise in the GOP.

That's where Miller, the evangelical geologist, comes in. If the intelligent-design advocates who testified last week downplayed their faith, Miller stressed his in order to demonstrate that orthodox religion is not in conflict with modern science.

A 15-year Kansas resident, Miller has edited a science book, ''Perspectives on an Evolving Creation," in which he and other evangelical Christians challenge intelligent design.

I highly recommend the book above, especially the chapters written by a personal friend of mine, Dr. Terry Gray. Dr. Gray presents a cogent critique of so-called Intelligent Design from an Evangelical who is an expert in Biochemistry.

But because the scientific community opted to boycott the school board hearings, anyone interested in Miller's views last week had to travel to an aging Ramada Inn across town. On Wednesday night, about 100 people did.

Advocates of intelligent design contend that evolutionary theory takes God out of the equation by concluding that all species change is random, unguided, and explained by natural causes.

''Every other code we know came from a mind," said Harris, the medical professor arguing in favor of intelligent design. ''To deduce that DNA codes came from a mind is not irresponsible."

But Miller insists that ''science does not affirm or deny the existence of a creator. It is simply silent on the existence or action of God." He accused proponents of intelligent design of resorting to a ''God of the gaps," whose hand is only visible when science can't solve life's riddles.

The description that Evolution is unguided angers Dr. Miller. The following quote of Dr. Miller from an ASA discussion board shows what motivates him:

This next change is the most extraordinary part of the ID changes to the standards.  THEY have changed the description of evolutionary science in the standards to include words such as "unguided and undirected."  THEY explicitly describe evolutionary science in the Minority Report as a Godless, purposeless, unguided process.  The standards submitted by the committee have no such language, nor do they imply anywhere that science, or more specifically evolutionary theory, is in anyway based on materialism or atheism.  It is the ID proposal, and the ID testimony before the board, that describes evolution in this way.  This angers me greatly.  The ID advocates are so intent to getting their views in the science curriculum that they are willing to describe evolution in the same way as Dawkins!  They even quoted him in the hearings to justify their definition.  I do not want Kansas children told that evolution is unguided and purposeless!!

 

Racial Threats Causes Evacuation at Christian College

Originally Posted: 4/24/2005

The official denominational college for the Evangelical Free Church of America (the denomination to which I belong) had an ugly racial incident this week. The New York Times reported the following:

Scores of African-American and Hispanic students at a small Evangelical Christian college here missed classes and were set to spend a second night in seclusion on Friday, after a series of threatening racist letters spurred their evacuation from the campus. Officials at Trinity International University, a conservative Bible-based school headquartered in this village 30 miles north of Chicago, said three students, two of them black and one Hispanic, had received hate-filled handwritten notes through the campus mail over two weeks.

The officials said they urged nearly 200 minority undergraduates to leave their dormitories after the third letter arrived on Thursday because it included growing threats of violence and was sent within days of the anniversaries of the Columbine school shooting in Colorado, the Oklahoma City bombing and Hitler's birth.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson helped to diffuse some of the tension:

The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, who met on Friday afternoon with recipients of the letters as well as other students, professors and parents, praised the institution's record on race and its response to the letters.

"What is painful to me today is to talk to these students - so young, so beautiful - who feel like a target is on their back because they are black," he told reporters. "Today their faith is tested in real time. Will they face evil with courage or will they face evil with fear?"

The Chicago Tribune reported the following concerning how Jackson helped:

Rev. Jesse Jackson said he met Friday at an undisclosed nearby church with some students, professors and parents who are black and Latino.

"It's not just the black students that are targeted here, but the entire campus," Jackson said. "There's nothing about this school, or any place, that makes it safe from violence. People of faith must have courage in the face of these threats."

Amen. It is too bad that college officials needed to be so cautious and remove the minority students from campus. The Chicago Sun Times had a columnist who complained about this. Fortunately, recent reports show that the students did return to campus today with 24-hour security guards being posted. The authorities do not have a suspect as of yet.

Update 4/26/2005: This appears to be a hoax.

A black college student was charged with a hate crime Tuesday for allegedly mailing racist threats to fellow minorities on campus, apparently because she was homesick and wanted to convince her parents the school was dangerous, authorities said.

The hate mail at 3,300-student Trinity International University spread fear among blacks and Hispanics on campus and prompted authorities at the Christian school to move more than 40 minorities out of their dormitories and into a hotel last week.

Alicia Hardin, 19, of Chicago was charged with disorderly conduct and a hate crime. The hate crime charge carries up to five years in prison.

She confessed to police on Monday, saying she was unhappy at Trinity and wanted to leave, said Lt. Ron Price.

This incident (hopefully just an empty threat) shows the importance for conservative Christians to take racial hatred seriously. The administration at Trinity College did even if some feel that they may have over-reacted. Some of the quotes from the students are encouraging.

 

"It was terrible," said Myleson Collins, an African-American student who was at an assembly Thursday where school officials broke the news of the letters and outlined the evacuation.

"I saw students crying. I didn't know what was going on. I was just praying," he said.
"We got segregated real quick. It felt like the 1960s with Martin Luther King. They didn't tell us where we were going."

Collins, a senior from Chicago, said the latest letter was sent to a friend of his, a black female student who told him what it said. The letter said that the writer had seen the student in church and that she was `lucky' because `I forgot to put bullets in my gun,'" Collins said.

...

"A lot of us are angry that people would [make threats]," said Kim, a white senior in her 30s who declined to give her last name. "It was really sad as we helped our friends get ready to go. That's what makes it hit home."
...

The decision to evacuate was announced around 4:30 p.m. Thursday after the third letter was discovered, Collins said.

School officials told all minority students to gather in the recreation center, where they were told what was happening, Collins said.

"It was really terrifying," he said. "I don't want to go back.

"As we left the recreation center, all the white kids were looking at you, and some of them were crying," Collins said. "It hurt so much for the first time I cried."

...

At a news conference on campus, the president of the student body said the threat "outrages us personally and as a community."

"In general, students feel very safe," said Steven Wilson, a senior from Cincinnati. "They are excited to get the other students back on campus. This is very out of character for our community."

Watson Jones, a black student who was among those evacuated Thursday night, did not attend classes Friday. He said that although his classmates were not letting the situation get them down, "we felt threatened. We were afraid."

...

Several white students at Trinity said the threats brought to life a division no one wants.

Lauren Poierier, 20, a sophomore, said it felt weird to walk around Friday on the largely empty campus.

"It makes me feel sad that the minorities have to go through this and feel unwanted," she said.

Religious Moderation Killed by Nuclear Option

The argument over judicial nominations and the filibuster is killing religious and political moderation. First, the religious right claimed that opposing the move was against people of faith.

Frist is trying to win support for a ban on the use of the filibuster, a technique to delay Senate business, to block votes on judicial nominees. He has agreed to give a videotaped speech Sunday for Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith.

My question to Focus on the Family is how either position on procedures is against people of faith? Not to be undone, the  Democratic Senator Ken Salazar returned in kind.

Washington - Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar angrily denounced the influential Christian conservative organization Focus on the Family on Wednesday as "unchristian."

In response, the Colorado Springs group accused the lifelong Roman Catholic of taking an "anti-Catholic" stance.

The war of words was prompted by Focus on the Family's advertising campaign attacking Salazar's position on President Bush's judicial nominations. Democrat Salazar opposes Republican efforts to eliminate the filibuster - a procedural hurdle Democrats use to block votes on certain nominees.

Salazar said the ads include "flat-out lies" about his record.

"Focus on the Family has been hijacking Christianity and has become a wing of the Republican Party," Salazar said after a news conference. "They're using Christianity and religion in a very unprincipled way."

I guess you can expect political parties and lobbying groups would try to appropriate religion to defend their political positions. What I find even more disturbing is when churches get drawn into the fray. I find offensive the call for a so-called Justice Sunday appropriating the pulpits of conservative churches. It is one thing to have sermons supporting life and opposing abortion. It is quite another thing to have a procedural vote to become the warp and woof of Christianity. As far as I know, the conservative churches have not yet taken the bait. The liberal churches have.

 

The moderator of the PCUSA chastised Majority Leader, Bill Frist.

Among those scheduled to speak in the conference call is the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a top official of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., in which Dr. Frist is an active member.

"One of the hallmarks of our denomination is that we are an ecumenical church," Mr. Kirkpatrick said in an interview on Thursday. He also said, "Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."

A spokesman for Dr. Frist said his remarks, which are not yet available, would be consistent with previous statements about fair treatment for judicial nominees. "I would hope that he would read Dr. Frist's remarks," the spokesman, Bob Stevenson, said of Mr. Kirkpatrick.

I don't get the ecumenism reference. Frist was trying to get support for his proposal amongst religious conservatives. It was Focus and other religious right  groups and not Senator Frist that were making the outrageous claims. On the other hand, I suspect Rev. Kilpatrick was trying to influence the vote the other way. Pot say hello to kettle. Note the following is part of the PCUSA's Constitution (Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XXXI):

IV. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

When the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America considered the proposed marriage amendment to the constitution last Summer. They declared it to be none of their business.

So what is causing all this shouting and name-calling on all sides? Columnist David Brooks nails it.

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.

Brooks doesn't go far enough. The nuclear option will not only blow up the Senate but civil discourse in general. Judicial activism not only causes rulings that I believe are wrong but also has horrific effects on both politics and religion. The nuclear option may produce more judges that are less judicially active but at a terrible cost.

Brooks concludes:

The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.

I'm even less sanguine than Brooks. Even with overturning Roe v. Wade, neither politics or religion will get better. Until people of faith on both the left and right start showing some more good will, our country will be stuck in an intractable civil war. We need to be part of the answer rather than part of the problem.

 

Dean Lures Back Red State Voters with Wrong Bait

Howard Dean gives as a goal of trying to lure so-called "values" votes in a USA Today interview.

"We need to be a national party, we need a national message, and we need to understand why people in dire economic straits — people who certainly aren't being helped by Republican policies — why they vote for George Bush," he said. "We need to respect voters in red states who want to vote for us, but we make it hard for them by not listening to what they have to say."

So far, so good. Values voters such as myself believe that the proper role of government is to protect the weak from the strong. The Democrats could make the argument that the so-called values agenda is too narrow. I made such an argument in January. Liberal Evangelicals, Ron Sider and Jim Wallis,  make similar appeals. I find such appeals moderately compelling. So, how about Howard Dean's own appeal?

Democrats get "caught" in defending abortion, he said. "Well, there's nobody who's pro-abortion, not Democratic or Republican. What we want to debate is who gets to choose: (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?"

This falls very flat. The issue is not who decides but whether the Democrats will be true to their roots of being for the powerless.  Hubert Humphrey put it this way:

The moral test of government is how that government  treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

One could effectively argue that the Republicans fail that test. Republicans pick up Evangelical voters because they don't fail as badly as the Democrats. Either party could easily improve their situation because the bar is so low. Dean's quote shows that despite his best intentions he is not really listening. Thus, he is losing what might have been an easy opportunity to pick up Evangelical voters.

Galileo, the Church, and the Bible

One of the accomplishments of Pope John Paul II was the rehabilitation of Galileo:

Oct 31, 1992 - After 359 years, Pope rehabilitates Galileo, condemned by the Church for saying earth turns around the sun.

The conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church has been the classical example of the conflict between Science and Biblical Christianity. However, Galileo's approach to Scripture was much more nuanced than has been generally appreciated. Galileo had a problem with an interpretation of Scripture but not Scripture itself. As such, he is a model of finding the common ground between science and religion and not their conflict. Note the following from pages 63 and 64 of Galileo's Daughter:

The troubling news of Madama Cristina’s displeasure inspired an immediate response from Galileo. Even more than he regretted her opposition, he dreaded the drawing of battle lines between science and Scripture. Personally, he saw no conflict between the two. In the long letter he wrote back to Castelli on December 21, 1613, he probed the relationship of discovered truth in Nature to revealed truth in the Bible.

“As to the first general question of Madama Cristina, it seems to me that it was most prudently propounded to you by her, and conceded and established by you, that Holy Scripture cannot err and the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. I should only have added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways … when they would base themselves always on the literal meaning of the words. For in this wise not only many contradictions would be apparent, but even grave heresies and blasphemies, since then it would be necessary to give God hands and feet and eyes, and human and bodily emotions such as anger, regret, hatred, and sometimes forgetfulness of things past, and ignorance of the future.”

These literary devices had been inserted into the Bible for the sake of the masses, Galileo insisted, to aid their understanding of matters pertaining to their salvation. In the same way, biblical language had also simplified certain physical effects in Nature, to conform to common experience. “Holy Scripture and Nature,” Galileo declared, “are both emanations from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God’s commands.”

Whither Modernism?

Donald Kennedy in last week's editorial in the journal Science bemoaned the twilight of the Enlightenment, a.k.a. modernism.

For much of their existence over the past two centuries, Europe and the United States have been societies of questioners: nations in which skepticism has been accepted and even welcomed, and where the culture has been characterized by confidence in science and in rational methods of thought. We owe this tradition in part to the birth of the Scottish Enlightenment of the early 18th century, when the practice of executing religious heretics ended, to be gradually replaced by a developing conviction that substituted faith in experiment for reliance on inherited dogma.

That new tradition, prominently represented by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, supplied important roots for the growth of modernity, and it has served U.S. society well, as it has Europe's. The results of serious, careful experimentation and analysis became a standard for the entry of a discovery or theory into the common culture of citizens and the policies of their governments. Thus, scientific determinations of the age of Earth and the theories of gravity, biological evolution, and the conservation of matter and energy became meaningful scientific anchors of our common understanding.

Kennedy claims too much here. Darwin was not the atheist Hume was. Frank Burch Brown in The Evolution of Darwin's Religious Views (as quoted by Alistair McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism, p. 104) stated:

His beliefs concerning the possible existence of some sort of God never entirely ceased to ebb and flow, nor did his evaluation of the merit of such beliefs. At low tide, so to speak, he was essentially an undogmatic atheist; at high tide he was a tentative theist; the rest of the time he was basically agnostic -- in sympathy with theism but unable or unwilling to commit himself on such imponderable questions. Overall his thought regarding theological matters could best be described as being in what he himself termed a "muddle."

Isaac Newton was a Christian. Kennedy goes on to complain:

Finally, certain kinds of science are now proscribed on what amount to religious grounds. Stem cell research is said by its opponents to pose a "moral dilemma." Yet this well-advertised dilemma does not arise from a confrontation between science and ethical universals. Instead, the objections arise from a particular belief about what constitutes a human life: a belief held by certain religions but not by others. Some researchers, eager to resolve the problem, seek to derive stem cells by techniques that might finesse the controversy. But the claim that the stem cell "dilemma" rests on universal values is a false claim, and for society to accept it to obtain transitory political relief would bring church and state another step closer.

The present wave of evangelical Christianity, uniquely American in its level of participation, would be nothing to worry about were it a matter restricted to individual conviction and to the expressions of groups gathering to worship. It's all right that in the best-selling novels about the "rapture," the true believers ascend and the rest of us perish painfully. But U.S. society is now experiencing a convergence between religious conviction and partisan loyalty, readily detectable in the statistics of the 2004 election. Some of us who worry about the separation of church and state will accept tablets that display the Ten Commandments on state premises, because they fail to cross a threshold of urgency. But when the religious/political convergence leads to managing the nation's research agenda, its foreign assistance programs, or the high-school curriculum, that marks a really important change in our national life. Twilight for the Enlightenment? Not yet. But as its beneficiaries, we should also be its stewards.

The current political situation is the result of a huge false dichotomy. So, people are forced to chose based upon their deepest allegiance. For most people,including myself, that would be their religion. So, if Donald Kennedy wants more people to accept the theories of modern science he needs to drop -- what Steven Jay Gould said of Richard Dawkins -- his Darwinian Fundamentalism. For those of us who are interested in both science and Evangelical Christianity, the Fundamentalists are on both sides are making a mess of things.

Church of Nigeria in America Established

Regular readers of my blog will note my chronicling the deterioration of the relationship between the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) and other Anglican bodies in what is known as the Global South. Leading the charge amongst the Third-World Anglicans is Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. On April 8th Archbishop Akinola announced the establishment of the The Church of Nigeria in America.

I have also become aware of the challenging circumstances in which many of you find yourselves because of the actions of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. By their recent decisions, they have torn the fabric of our common life and have jeopardized your lives and ministries. This is a tragic reality that cannot be ignored. While it remains my prayer that ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada will repent and embrace the teaching of the Communion, their actions have placed an obligation upon me to provide for the proper and continuing pastoral and episcopal oversight for Nigerian churches in North America.

It is well known that many Nigerian Anglicans who live in the North America are no longer able to worship in an Anglican church, some have drifted to other churches, and others have even given up the faith.  I well remember one woman coming to me during one of my visits and, with tears, saying she could no longer worship in an ECUSA church and that her whole family no longer had a church home, yet they would prefer to remain faithful Anglicans. In saying this she spoke for many others.

Several of our Nigerian clergy in America have been informed they can no longer work in an Episcopal diocese or have had their funding cut.  Finally, the unilateral dismissal by the Presiding Bishop of the Chaplain we had jointly appointed to minister to Nigerian congregations illustrates the extent of the brokenness of our relationship and underlines the need to provide alternative structures for episcopal and pastoral care.

After much prayer and careful discernment with appropriate colleagues and advisors over the last two years, and in full consultation with the Nigerian congregations in America, together with the enthusiastic endorsement of the Episcopal Synod and the Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) we announce the formation of the Convocation of Anglican Nigerian Churches in America.

This Convocation will function as a ministry of the Church of Nigeria in America. Our intention is not to challenge or intervene in the churches of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada but rather to provide safe harbour for those who can no longer find their spiritual home in those churches. While it will initially operate under our Constitution and Canons, it will have its own legal and ecclesial structure and local suffragan episcopate. I will be asking the next General Synod of the Church of Nigeria, which will meet in September 2005, to make the necessary constitutional amendments.

During the intervening months, in cooperation with our friends in the Anglican Communion Network, I will be appointing episcopal visitors from among already consecrated bishops to provide pastoral and episcopal oversight for those congregations already in operation and in formation. I am excited by the possibilities before us and look forward to seeing this ministry grow.

ID Cannot Take the Heat

Proponents of a theory known as intelligent design (ID) have gotten together to form a blog called Intelligent Design the Future. This blog differs from other blogs such as this one by not having comments. One of the entries complains about confusing ID with Young Earth Creationism (YEC):

ID and the Charge of Creationism William Dembski

Despite intelligent design’s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a maneuver to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed.

Excuse me? If people cannot interact on your blog, the charge of censorship falls hollow at least on my ears. What about the substance of the complaint? Is it reasonable for people to conclude that ID is a form of creationism? This seems to be complaining too much because you could argue anybody who believes in a creator including theistic evolutionists are a form of creationism. In fact, many -- including myself -- who hold to that view prefer the label evolutionary creationists. What about the other end of the spectrum? What do YECs consider ID to be? Jonathan Savarti in Answers in Genesis says this:

Young-earth creationists (YECs) and the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) are natural allies in many ways, although we have major differences as well.

Dembski tries to disassociate himself from YECs but in my opinion grants too much:

Despite my disagreements with Morris and young earth creationism, I regard those disagreements as far less serious than my disagreements with the Darwinian materialists.

Dembski like Gertrude in Hamlet protesteth too much. Until he more publicly and explicitly disavows YEC it is reasonable for the general public and academia to assume they are joined at the hip. Hopefully, this new venture will do just that if he opens up comments on his blog. Welcome to the blogosphere. Ask Dan Rather what it is like. If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

Pluralism Good for Evangelical Church

The Evangelical Outpost is having a symposium asking about Judeo-Christian morality in an ethically pluralistic society. First, I'm going to narrow the topic from Judeo-Christian morality and look specifically at an Evangelical one (given that in my opinion the whole Judeo-Christian label is not helpful). Second, since the topic itself appears to beg the question I will not presuppose what form the influence Evangelical Christians ought to have on society as a whole.

The problem concerning the interaction between a so-called pluralistic society and believers is almost three thousand years old. King Ahab had adopted the henotheism of the surrounding Canaanite culture. Henotheism is the a belief that each nation had its own god. We will see more of this in a much different context later. This was (like today) a faux pluralism. You could choose amongst a number of gods, but the choice of Yahweh who was the God of all people was not available. The prophet Elijah challenged the state religion and made truth claims in what we call today the "marketplace of ideas". Even Elijah was plural in the sense was there were multiple options of which there needs to be choice. Elijah put it this way in 1 Kings 18:21:

Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."

But the people said nothing.

Elijah was definitely counter-cultural in that he was one prophet amongst hundreds on the other side. He also became depressed when his actions did not produce a society-wide change. Note how Elijah was rejected by the people making a non-choice and the king by an imposed choice. This is the essence of pluralism. God relieved that depression by showing Elijah a remnant who truly followed Him and who did made a real choice.

Presenting an option is the middle ground between the non-choice and the imposed choice of a state religion. The latter has produced profoundly negative effects in church history.

After the Thirty Years' War came the Peace of Westphalia. This established a "henotheism" in Europe by carving it up into Catholic and Lutheran sections. This was the start of the established national churches. There were exceptions by the so-called "free churches" that were not established. (Note: the Evangelical Free Church of which I am a member is a descendent of such a church.)  An attempted revolt against the established religion in the Peasants' War resulted in disaster with hundreds of thousands of deaths. In fact, death was the result of established religion irrrespective of who was in charge. For example, in England Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and Sir Thomas More were all executed for their religious views.

This produced the English Dissenters or non-conformists who dissented from the Act of Uniformity. Many of the non-conformist denominations (e.g. Baptists, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and Puritans) are the forerunners of modern Evangelicals. This particularly carried over to America. Patrick Henry's famous speech Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death was in part the result of witnessing a non-conforming pastor being flogged for lacking a license to preach. Thomas Jefferson's famous letter coining the phrase "separation of church and state" was in response to the Danbury Baptist Association who were concerned about the established church.

Here's a part of their request that spawned Jefferson's remark:

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Scripture and history teach us that pluralism is not quite the enemy we assume them to be. It is true that it is used as an excuse like the people at Mount Carmel not to decide. But, it is preferable to the religious tyranny spawned by state-sponsored religion. There is a catch phrase used by people in progressive politics that applies here to Evangelicals as we interact with our culture:

Speak the truth to power.

We may not be in charge, nor is it likely that we will be. Yet, we must propose the truth to all of the remnant who might listen. If God be God follow Him. If Baal be God follow him.