The lgbtq+ agenda in the church followed exactly the same path that you’re attempting - wanting to start “conversations” and “education” - see where that ended up. [Note to Christie - you can stay off the delete button here - this is not going any further other than pointing out the most obvious similarity]
As for the atheist agenda - it’s amusing to see such genuine childlike naivete - just go on to the friendly atheist website and ask if anyone is interested in Jesus - see the response you get and take deep note of the words used to let you know what they think.
Which book would that be - the bible? Would that be the book that contains verses that state that God wrote with his finger on a tablet of stone -
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day : wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Interesting choice of words!
The net effect of this statement is that you are on a war path - whether put that way or not. There will be casualties, especially given the situation below after your rather surprisingly welcomed meeting with the head pastor. There will always be those who reject the big bang and evolution in a church and in your case there must be quite a few if someone took the initiative to get AIG involved. These are the folks who will eventually have to go and find somewhere else to attend because they’ll be alienated - unable to make reference to certain texts without being ostracized by words or body language. It always happens that way.
It is really no surprise that another pastor chooses to ignore what is plainly written in the bible in order to follow after the “science” of the day. It is indeed an increasing rarity these days to find pastors that take a stand on the word of God as it is plainly written and understood.
The recurrent "plainly written " phrase is interesting, in that it is plainly written that adulterous people should be stoned to death. And a thousand other things we now read in light of having been written in an ancient culture and understanding. How do you pick and choose?
3 Likes
Yes, me too. The churches we attended when i was a child were more of the baptistic, revivalist type, and I raised my hand more than once. I consider it more of a wedge than sledgehammer experience, and my ‘confirmation’ (maybe ‘affirmation’) wasn’t until my late teens when I became more assured of what I understood and believed. It’s remarkable that some Christians doubt your faith if you can’t point to a date and hour.
You and John Calvin are two peas in a pod, Kevin. Both of you condemn the ghastly errors of those who would reject the plain teaching of the Bible in favor of the science of the day.
John Calvin was quite forthright in condemning those who rejected the Bible’s plain teaching that the Earth does not move. Here’s how Calvin exegeted Psalm 104:5:
“Here the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air, and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down there.”
In his commentary on Psalm 93:1, Calvin asserts that, contrary to the “science” of the day, the sun and the heavens revolve around the earth, not vice versa:
“The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?”
You stand in the fine tradition of John Calvin, @KevinRuiters. Well done, sir.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
3 Likes
It most definitely was not put that way. Wanting a movement or destructive idea to die out does not imply a “war path,” especially when I specifically mentioned loving and understanding the humans involved. I didn’t even imply that I would attack the YEC idea/movement. FWIW, I believe YEC will die out on its own through promotion of rational thought – and a God that’s more than a magician – among Christians.
Who was surprised? You? I certainly wasn’t. Why would anyone be surprised that a pastor welcomed a cordial meeting with an inquisitive member of his congregation? That’s like…their job.
As for “casualties,” I can only say you simply don’t have enough information to make that assumption. Providing the opportunity to learn and discuss a view of scripture that is enhanced by science rather than precluded by it is not the same as attacking people. There are ways to approach disagreements with others where Christ is the focus and His love the driving force. That’s what we’re called to do! Not all disagreements end with casualties.
No one “[got] AIG involved.” Read my previous comments. The tour company has a partnership with AiG, and my church is promoting a trip series hosted by the tour company. I have no idea how many YECs vs whatever vs don’t-really-give-a-flying-flip there are in my church because it’s not a critical or divisive issue.
Maybe you’re projecting a little? That’s not rhetorical – I really do wonder why you would make those assumptions. If believers like me have not had to “find somewhere else to attend” under church leadership that hasn’t committed one way or the other, why would those with YEC interpretations have to find somewhere else if an old-earth interpretation gets more exposure? The only reason I think you might say that is that you wouldn’t trust non-YEC believers to act with the same love and grace as YECs. If that’s not what you meant, please explain why “it always happens that way.”
To be clear: I’m not even proposing any changes in my church. The Statement of Faith is silent on the age-of-the-earth issue and I think that’s fine. If current members don’t want to attend a church that doesn’t choose a side on the issue, but isn’t afraid to discuss it, they should have already left.
1 Like
There already have been numerous casualties to YECism, because young people who love science discover that it is false and leave the church and the faith they were brought up in. They are certainly a percentage of the ‘Nones’. (Barna is a Christian polling organization.):
2 Likes
Right? But the idea that you have to have an emotional, born-again, one-size-fits-all, gutter-to-God experience came pretty late in history. (If you don’t do it right you aren’t saved!)
2 Likes
One of the most interesting aspects of that article, is that AIG tends to focus on their interpretation of #3, conflict with science, when it is only one of 6 reasons, the rest of them which can be laid at their feet.
I have also heard it said, probably here, that the one reason covering all others for youth leaving, is that the church is no longer relevant to their lives, something that perhaps we have all failed at.
1 Like
I missed this comment a couple of days ago when I responded to the one just after it:
Yes, I was talking about the Bible – the one you quoted with a (random? mistaken?) emphasis on the phrase “seventh day” for some reason. Not specifically KJV, though. Where is your beef with what I said? Neither God Himself, nor His grand Creation, can be explained in a million books, much less one. I fail to see how that contradicts scripture.
Thanks! I thought so, too! Especially in that particular order (full disclosure: I couldn’t think of another order that made sense). I was quite proud of that sentence, to be honest. A real literary achievement. A feather in my proverbial cap, if you will. Nigh on perfect, one might say. Magnificent poetry in only eight words.
1 Like
The Clergy Letter Project may be worth mentioning. It is a letter signed by over 17,000 Christian clergy.
8 Likes
Why does that page say “I need hellcarola” at the top?
1 Like
Not to diminish your pleasure, but …perhaps to point out the serendipity in your words, J.B. (John Bertram) Phillips wrote a book called: Your God Is Too Small in 1952. It has since been republished several times, and is available through Amazon: Your God Is Too Small.
Thanks for the link! FWIW, that Amazon page says that the book is now public domain (at least in the US), but since I don’t know how to verify that, I won’t link to the 92-page PDF that comes up as the first result when you Google for “Your God is Too Small PDF”.
(And in case anyone didn’t catch my sarcasm (this is the internet after all), of course I didn’t think the idea in that sentence @Terry_Sampson referred to was original. I was just poking fun at @KevinRuiters’ extremely brief commentary of it.)
1 Like
Yeah, I saw that. I’ll check it out, and maybe PM you with what I find.
1 Like
I’m picking my jaw up off the kitchen floor. This seems unimaginable in today’s social climate. Thank you for sharing it. This is encouraging.
I almost forgot my previous intention, but here’s what I had hoped to find and share:
https://thecommonlife.com/files/books/Your_God_is_Too_Small.pdf
The other day, I came across and spent 1:57:43 watching World Science Festival’s Infinite Worlds: A Journey through Parallel Universes
- Wherein a panel of “big names” talk about the theoretical possibility of an infinite number of worlds/universes. It’s not a video for the timid!!! However, after watching it, I realized that the springboard assumption among panel members was that the potentially infinite number of universes they considered, all were mind-numbingly spawned by the Big Bang. And I wondered: What if there is a “before” and an “elsewhere” in which even more infinite universes have been and are being and will be spawned that don’t originate with the Big Bang. It would seem, then, that even a God of the “Big Bang” infinite worlds would be too small.
To be sure, that project did start many presidential administrations ago. It has merely carried on and continues presently. If somebody were to start something like that now, it would still get signed by a lot of people, but I bet all the recent signers would be a lot more uniformly affiliated along one side of the left-right spectrum.
(Note that the 'Clergy Letter Project is not to be confused with the “Clergy Project”, as I did just now - accidentally looking up the latter when what I was remembering was the former (correctly linked by T.)
1 Like
My friend, look the idea seems quite dogmatic and I don’t think that step you are willing to take is even healthy. Although I am not myself YEC, but there is nothing it does such harm to church. The church indeed must provide enough fuel to educate on every possible interpretation from all schooling of creationism and evolution. It is wise to be ‘OPEN’ and let the believers decide which position to embrace. I have many friends who hold to various positions and yet we never act barrier against one another. I was struggled with this subject and now it has been 8 years almost in this particular subject. I preferred more to be open rather being wired up in any particular position. Genesis 1 opens wide range of possible understanding. Scientific discoveries keep on getting updated. The only best thing is to open a harmonic platform for sound discussion and be updated with science and teaching of the scripture. Hope, you understand friend.
1 Like