Simultaneous with Dennis’ comments, I receive an e-mail from NH, a physician and Christian thinker whom I respect dearly. His note is as follows…

“I would commend to you a careful reading of these two items:

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1137&var3=issuedisplay&var4=IssRead&var5=112

in which 8 geologists appeal to the PCA to accept the “old earth view.”  It is a pitiful piece when looked at from a theological perspective, and actually quite poor from a scientific perspective (the analogies in particular are often invalid). Hopefully when you read it you will anticipate the arguments made in this point-by-point rebuttal by another geologist:

http://www.reasonablehope.com/node/117

Both the links are worth reading, the second article being a rebuttal of the first. You may determine for yourself the strength of his rebuttal, though I consider it as standard classical argument of young-earthers.  Clearly, NH is a 7-literal day creationist. I am very reluctant to trash either Dennis’ or NH’s comments, yet offer a slightly different approach.  The first difficulty is in creating a discussion. The 7-day creationist (if you wish, young-earth folk) consider their stand as a litmus-test of orthodoxy, and any disagreement is considered either an inability of believe the Scriptures or inability to hold Scripture as the infallible word of God. The old-earthers look at disdain at young-earthers as somewhat scientifically naive and guilty of the sins that possesses many medieval theologians that fought against Kepler and Galileo. Neither side is right.

I proffer several foundational statements.

1. The word “day” in Genesis 1-3 does not necessarily denote 24 hour spans. This argument is ably developed by both Hebrew scholars and biblical scholars that look at the use of the word “day” throughout Scripture.

2. The genre of Genesis 1-3 is neither strictly poetic nor strictly literal-historical. Those who develop the construct of Genesis 1 as simply being an apologetic against the Egyptian gods are wrong, though an apologetic is implied by the structure of how Moses constructs Gen. 1. Nor does it utilize language and terms that suggest an accurate detailed historical approach to creation.

3. The implication that God commands events to happen in each of the days of creation suggest a divine interference on a “daily” basis. Dennis’ comments, of which I’ve heard many times before, suggests that there is a “anthropomorphism” in the very substance of the atomic structure of the universe, that demanded that this is the sort of universe only that could have come out of the “big bang”. This seems to lean dangerously to Deism, if not Animism, whereby Nature itself is offered the source of personality, and that the universe, once wound up, can take care of itself.

Thus, there remain a few questions of relevance…

1. What is the level of involvement of God in the process of creation/evolution? At what stage, or, at what time in history, did God decide to cease active interventional work in the universe outside of the laws of nature, and thus work through the “laws of the universe” in his actions in the world, including his miracles as described in Scripture? This is simply an unanswerable question. Scriptures give us no clues, and science could never answer such questions.

2. Is it morally deceptive of God to create things that are aged? To what extent would he have done that? In my opinion, it is neither right nor proper to ask such questions.

3. Do the questions of creation/evolution really need to recruit discussions of a universal flood? Are these not ultimately separate questions?

4. Can we ultimately claim an exegetical basis for establishing the genre-type of Gen 1-3? I bring this up, because young earthers wail long and hard about the abandonment of a strictly literal interpretation of the Scripture. Yet, John Gerstner, in Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, waxes long and hard against dispensationalists who force literal interpretations when the genre doesn’t permit a literal interpretation.

My own personal stance leaves me neither a strictly young nor old earth creationist. I feel that we assume too much when we attempt to engage in the creation argument. I feel that discussions have not allowed for a plastic middle position, and focused on how far from that middle one needs to go before one falls off the edge. It could happen both ways. I feel that Dempski falls off the edge, when he removes God from the much of the processes of creation. Morris from the Creation Research Institute falls off the other edge by pushing his agenda so hard he simply does poor science. It would be better for Morris to simply be a fideist than an apologist. Yet, I also accept that much of science will eventually be proven wrong, that our standard tools such as carbon dating will be replaced, and that new paradigms will replace old. Like Hugh Ross, and others of the conservative old-earth school, I see how we may use science as an apologetic for a Christian worldview, even though the science may evolve with time. As an example, the red-shift observation in the stars led to the “big-bang” theory, which is entirely consistent with Christian thinking that there was a time when the universe was not, and then came instantly (almost) into being. The intelligent design argument wonderfully argues against a laissez-faire universe explained entirely by random events. God clearly interfered with natural processes at all stages throughout the development of this world, though we will never know the balance of interference/natural process nor the speed/acceleration by which he had natural processes occur. To me, the arguments sit around trying to tell God how He did things. I’m sure He’s not so amused at our undertakings.

Since we are on the topic of God interfering with nature, there is one more thing that bothers me. I just wish to know why Jesus didn’t turn the water into beer rather than wine.

The Providence of God, by Paul Helm ?????

This was a hard book to rate, in that it was not an easy book to read. A few sections had to be re-read a number of times, and still pretty much passed me by. I have reviewed other books in the past by Paul Helm. Dr. Helm is noted as one of the premier conservative Christian philosophers alive today, and currently teaches at Regent College in Vancouver, B.C. In this text, Helm tackles the hardest of all possible problems, the issue of God’s providence. This book, as I understand from other sources, was written as the philosophical response to Openness theology. What does “providence” mean? How does providence fit philosophically with the thought of human freedom, with the idea of petitionary or intercessory prayer, with the idea of human responsibility, or with the idea of the existence of evil. Helm efficiently shows how all of these concepts relate to the same issue. He shows that if one believes in a situation where God is not knowledgeable of the precise future, or has not determined all future decisions that one will make (God taking “risks”), it does not lend to easier solutions to the problem of evil, the problem of freedom, etc., than if one believes in a God who ordains all that will come to pass (God in a no-risk situation). So, Helm concludes with a strong “Calvinistic” approach to free-will and providence, though remaining very gracious to disagreement. In the end, Helm does a laudable job at showing the consistency of one’s free will and a God who has determined all that is, was, and will be. Helm shows that not only is a no-risk God the most logical (as well as Scriptural) conclusion, but also the conclusion that offers the Christian the greatest comfort, knowing that the future is not in our hands, but in His. Thus, he provides a rational basis for life and obedience as a Christian person, not in “immobility” of feeling that there is no point in acting, since the fates will be what they will be, but, since we remain ignorant of the future, living out our lives as responsible moral agents under a God who will make all things, evil or good, work out for our best. This is not a book for everybody. Perhaps one needs to possess a certain insanity to even think about the philosophical implications of providence. If your are one of those tormented souls that troubles over philosophical details of good, evil, determinism, and the fates in a theistic context, this is a must read book.

Telling the Truth, edited by DA Carson ???

This book is written as a compendium of a series of talks given as conference held at Trinity Theological Seminary in Chicagoland. The subtitle suggests that the focus in on addressing the gospel to the post-modern world. The first few talks help to define in a very cursory fashion the nature of post-modernism, with a focus on the writings of Richard Rorty and Michel Fouchalt. Subsequent chapters deal with the issues of evangelism in the community. The book does a poor job of developing the thought structures of post-modernism. The development of evangelism specifically to the post-modern mindset was really not discussed well. The use of various post-modern terms, such as “metanarrative” was used in just about every chapter to make it post-modern oriented, though dealing with a post-modernist seemed similar to dealing the pre-modernist or modernist, i.e., speaking and living the truth. The book is written almost entirely by either academic or college evangelists, such as Campus Crusade or Inter-varsity personnel, with emphasis on how to reach students. It leaves the assumption that students and academics are the only post-modernists, and not necessarily the man on the street. The book thrives on the discussion of techniques, failing a Reformed perspective of God’s work in evangelism. Several chapters simply should have been omitted completely, such as a chapter emphasizing Christ-centeredness in all Biblical reading which does violence to best Biblical hermeneutic. Worst, as mentioned before, the lengthy advice given for evangelism is true regardless of whether one is witnessing Christ to a post-modern, modern, pre-modern or normal person. There was no connect on how to specifically engage a person devoid of truth concepts, outside of the normal engagement of the person. I don’t wish to be too hard on this book. There was much good thought and discussion about engaging the culture which I found relevant to my own personal life. I think that Francis Schaeffer, though writing 30-40 years ago but definitely not dated, offers still the best advice about the engagement of culture. A Teaching Company series by Louis Markos is excellent at exploring (in the last three lectures) the modernist and post-modernist mindset from a Christian perspective.With Markos, the Modernist is a person who rejects the ability to communicate or know truth but will never deny the existence of truth. With post-modernism, communication may occur, though you are communicating nothing relevant, since truth simply does not exist. Yet, as Schaeffer insists, the modernist (and post-modernist) cannot live by his own assumptions. Penetrating those inconsistencies in a clear and loving way was not discussed in this book. We live in a society which one would love to escape. The moral turpitude, the despair and mindlessness of even the academic elites, the wonton materialism and narcissistic hedonism which governs our culture makes it challenging to survive let alone thrive. Yet, God calls us, and this book challenges each of us to creativity at the task of preaching the gospel in an intelligent yet winsome fashion. Lord help us.

10 Books that Screwed Up the World, by Benjamin Wiker ????

This was more an entertaining read, rather than deeply informative. Wiker writes well, and steps through the books and lives of 15 people (he actually reviews 15 books) that have brought humans to the worse rather than the better. Included are Machiavelli, Rousseau, Hobbes, Marx, Nietsche, Hitler, Sanger, Mead, and Kinsey, as well as six other authors. Wiker adeptly points out the destructive philosophy and character of each of these texts. He does not do any in-depth analysis, but provides brief summaries of the characters of the authors, their writings, and philosophical implications of their works. It is a nice work in the “gutter” authorship of the last half of the last millennium. It is not uncommon to see the “top ten” books, but now we have a first review of the “bottom 10” (actually 15) texts since the Renaissance. This is a fun read for idle moments, and worth getting.

Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, by Alister McGrath ?????

I had varied throughout the reading of the book, at rating the book between 3-5. I finally settled on a 5 in spite of a few serious misgivings. Alister McGrath is known as a conservative Protestant scholar working out of Oxford. McGrath takes a fairly event stance in spite of his supposed academic and conservative stance. Sometimes, he goes a little too far in trying to be moderate, such as when he seems to side with Fosdick in the Fosdick/Machen controversy, Machen accusing liberal Christianity of having abandoned Christian roots and thus not being Christian at all. I think Machen was correct. Yet, McGrath also is very even keeled in his presentation of Pentecostalism as being the dominant force now driving the massive spread of Protestantism throughout much of the rest of the world, including South America, Africa, Asia and Korea, as well as possibly the Philippines. Thematically, McGrath holds tight to his thesis of displaying how the Christian “dangerous” idea that put the Bible into the hands of the layman, allowing them to read and interpret scripture outside of the forced interpretation of the church, has allowed the Protestant movement to adapt to other cultures and societies well beyond the expectations of the west. The book is divided into three parts, the first being a standard historical outline from Luther and Zwingli and Calvin to the present day. It is a focused history, examining the fundamental thesis of what happens when you put the Bible into the hands of a layman. True, you get diversity, heresy, secularization, etc., but you also get adaptability to various cultures. The second part outlined Protestant influence on Western culture, including music, art, science, etc. I’m not sure all of his analyses were entirely accurate, especially with issues of evolution and science, but again, McGrath is possibly attempting to not takes sides in the issue. He still leans toward the evolutionists, sadly. The third part speaks of the rapid growth of Christianity through the rest of the world, and his hypothesis as to why that is happening, which is, as mentioned above, Pentecostalism and other forms of spirituality that are more directed to the culture, thinking  of the lifestyle of people outside of the Western world and adapting Christianity to those cultures, rather than forcing a pure Western cultural interpretation on Christianity. Missing in the book is discussions as to how a large part of Christianity has trashed the Scripture. This is especially true of liberal Christianity. Since the basic thesis of this book is the freedom to interpret Scripture, when you deconstruct Scripture rather than interpret it, does that produce a Christian? I don’t think so. Also not included is the concept of the “heretic”. Essentially, Islam, as well as Jehovah’s Witness and Mormonism are heresies, that I would fail to define as essentially Christian, yet he doesn’t address this issue of deviants of interpretation and belief that delegitimize being a Christian. This is a book worth reading, though a bit dense and sometimes controversial, it reads easily and is very thought provoking.

The Rest is Noise, Alex Ross  ?????

This book was a joy to read, in that I have a great enjoyment of classical music. Ross provides a deep insight into what has happened to modern classical music, by providing a historical commentary on the twentieth century development of classical music. The story starts with the struggles between the differing styles of Richard Strauss and Gustav Mahler. He then delves into the effects of the New Viennese school (Schoenberg, etc.), the development of Stravinsky and a counter to atonality, early modern American music, such as Ives, etc., Sibelius, and the post-WWI German scene. A second part delves into music in the Soviet Union 1933-1945, American music, including Copland, and music at the end of Hitler’s Germany. The third part, from 1945 to 1999, discusses the development of the Avant-Garde and a rebellion against all tonality, indeed, all formality in music, including the very beat and structure of music from the time of the middle ages. Various movements, including that of Benjamin Britten, Messiaen, Ligeti, and others continuing to rebel against the rebellers, were described. Finally, the minimalists and final composers of the end of the twentieth century are noted. What I appreciated about Ross was his ability to go beyond the discussion of the method of music, in order to discuss the media and message of music. He freely admits that the music scene changed in part because composers no longer had a message, no longer had anything to say, and no longer saw a point to music. Leading among these was the heavy influence of John Cage in the post-WWII years. Thus, it is surprising that all forms of art, including painting, sculpture, literature, as well as music have followed similar routes in deconstruction with loss of any legitimate message to convey. So, we are left in a perplexing situation, where music is sometimes sold as the sounds of somebody hacking a table apart with an axe, or a locomotive rolling down the tracks, or sounds of nature, or the audience shuffling their chairs, or human voices degraded by electronic means to the point of no longer perceiving the word or even the recognition of humanness. In deed, in the despair, and destruction of music from its highest form as found in JS Bach and others.  This does not mean that all twentieth century music is bad, and I have an appreciation for some of the music that has been written in the last 75-100 years. Yet, the awareness of the underlying philosophy, and personal character of the composers, was more informative as the loss of moral, spiritual, ethical, or personal value of both the composer and their music, is noted. This leads to a discussion of the title of this book, which is itself ambiguous. A “rest” in music is a pause where no sound is made. To the modern composer, a rest may actually be noise. Ross never defines noise, but sometimes suggests that some of modern music may be noise. So, just has time has weeded away the dross of most classical composers, time may again weed away much of the dross of our current noise composers.

The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry ???

This is a fairly short book that I read in flight to Cameroon. It was written by a French pilot, who was once grounded while flying over the Sahara Desert in the 1930’s. He eventually died in WWII. The book has achieved a near cult status, in part owing to many implications which could be drawn from the story. I’m not sure if the author was hinting at deep profoundness when he wrote the book, though his suggestion that it’s a story mostly for adults tends to hint at that. The story is of a pilot who crashes in the desert, meets a little man (prince) who asks him lots of questions. The little prince then goes into detail describing his own planet, and various other planets that he has visiting in the universe before falling to earth. In then follows the little Princes’ impression of earth.

This book was an interesting read, encouraging a focus on appreciating the little things, like a rose. Is was not so good of book at inspiring an ideology. For example, the little prince was responsible for keeping his plant in good order and for preventing the overgrowth of baobabs, by uprooting them early, and if not uprooted, they will overgrow the planet. Yet, the baobabs are simply trees. Does he mean that we offer preference for one plant over another on our earth. He disdains planets that have egotistical kings and greedy businesspeople, but is he suggesting a generality? I hope not. Always mentioned was his preoccupation for getting back to his small world to tend for a single flower, which was supposed to be the only one in the universe, except that there was an abundance of them on earth. So, what is he implying? Environmental implications? Societal implications? Economic, capitalistic implications? I suppose that a person who most loves this story would imply that I simply do not understand. Yet, that in itself is a form of wanton arrogance, as perhaps I understand all too well what the author’s intentions were. The back cover suggests that I am supposed to learn what is really important in life through this little story. But, it hasn’t happened. Perhaps my greatest dismay is that relations with others is important, yet the little prince seemed to control the entire exchange between the pilot and himself. Even the little prince could not tell what was most important in life. Was it his flower, or was it the sheep he desired on his planet, though it might eat his flower? In fact, the little prince seems to imply that he himself was most important. So, we’ll let the little prince return to his own planet, and spend our time on earth using other means as to what is best in life. Just ask Conan the Barbarian!