Conversations with a Young Earth Creationist

We wrapped up our Answers in Genesis conference last night. Our speaker has been Terry Mortenson and I have really enjoyed getting to know him and listening to his perspective on the age of the earth.

Last December I blogged about some of my thoughts concerning his position. Mortenson is a Young Earth Creationist, meaning that he believes the days of creation in Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour days and that the universe (including the earth) is 6,000 years old. I have leaned towards an the day-age view of creation (i.e. the Old Earth View), but have been particularly undecided. I have been like the Swiss on this issue of the age of the earth. I knew that a debate had been raging for a number of years between the Old Earthers and Young Earthers. I have been neutral on the issue.

It is hard to stay neutral, because Mortenson and Answers in Genesis hold the age of the earth as an essential doctrine, meaning if you do not believe that the universe is 6,000 years old then there is something faulty or compromised in your beliefs about God and the gospel.

Ouch!

Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, writes, "The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death."[Source] Ham is saying that unless you believe in a young earth, then you are not worshiping the God of the Bible. Now those are fighting words, but back to my thoughts about Terry Mortenson

Mortenson preached at our church Sunday morning on the issue of millions of years and the value of a right understanding of Genesis. [Listen here]

I like Mortenson. He served on staff with Campus Crusade for a number of years. He study under Wayne Grudem at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in the 1990s. Mortenson is passionate and well-informed both theologically and scientifically. He is one of the good guys. I cannot say that he has yet to convince me of the necessity of the young earth theory and the young earth interpretation of the age of the earth, but he has helped me in my reading of Genesis.

At dinner Sunday night after the conference, we had a lively discussion about Genesis 1. I have often read the text from the "framework" perspective. (There is a good explanation of the framework view of Genesis 1 on the Veritas Forum website.) This reading sees Genesis 1:1-2 as the opening scene of the narrative. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. The days of creation don't begin until Genesis 1:3 "And God said let there be light.

The framework view also carries with it my assumption of the poetic style of Genesis 1 with the days of forming and the days of filling. The frame is crated by the phrases "And God said..." and "There was evening and morning, the ____ day." The frame creates a poetic rhythm in which the true story of God's creation narrative unfolds.

Mortenson challenged this view and presented some compelling exegetical reasons why Day 1 of creation includes Genesis 1:1-2 and why the narrative doesn't match the style of Hebrew poetry in other places of the Old Testament. This will require more research on my end. Mortenson was right when he challenged me not to read my 21^st century Western assumptions into the biblical text. Mortenson contends that Genesis 1 is a straight forward historical account of creation.

I was rereading William LaSor's Old Testament Survey on the style of Genesis 1. He notes that Genesis 1 is not a straight forward historical account in the modern sense because there were no eye witnesses to creation. People were not created until day 4. Nevertheless, I have more work to do in understanding Genesis 1 from a Hebrew perspective. Mortenson has challenged me here.

In our Sunday night dinner, Mortenson and I also discussed various issues that formed the basis for the leadership luncheon, which did not have as much time for Q&A as I hoped. I boiled my questions to the youth earth position down to ten questions. We discussed maybe three or four in our luncheon. Here is the list of questions based on Mortenson's reasoning on why Christians must reject the concept of millions of years. [Read Mortenson's position here]

1) Does the issue of animal death after the fall grow out of the biblical text or is it a response to scientific data?

2) Is the high value of animal life consistent with the biblical witness?

3) Is the death of animals incompatible with the goodness of God?

4) What do the following verses say about animal death and character of God?
It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert. (Psalm 74:14 NIV)

The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. (Psalm 104:14 NIV)

5) Even if animal death was interpreted as intrinsically bad, isn't it plausible that evil was present in God's good creation? How do you explain the presence of Satan in the form of a serpent in God's good creation before the fall?

6) What are the other theological problems with an old earth view besides the issue of animal death and the character of God?

7) What do you mean by "compromised" in the following statement: "Most church leaders and scholars quickly compromised using the gap theory, day-age view, local flood view, etc. to try to fit 'deep time' into the Bible"? Do you mean they are compromising the authority of Scripture?

8) Is the age of the earth an issue of the interpretation of Scripture or the authority of Scripture?

9) Can the young earth view and old earth view be considered two different, but equally orthodox, interpretations of the biblical text?

10) What do the church fathers say about the age of the earth?

There are two implicit issues on which Mortenson builds his case for the necessity of a young earth view of 6,000 years of cosmic history: animal death before the fall and a literal interpretation of the days of creation.

On the issue of the interpretation of the days of creation (Hebrew word: Yom), I don't have much to say. I have read the reasoning for 24 hour days and days as long periods of time. I see it as an exegetical stalemate. Mortenson has helped me to see where the Youth Earthers are coming from, but I am remain unconvinced that literal 24 hours days is the ONLY orthodox position. Mortenson overstates the point when he says, "The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth 6,000 years ago." He does a good job defending this interpretation, but it is just that…an interpretation of the text.

Genesis 1:1 does NOT say, "4,500 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis was written approximately in 1,500 BC. The text says, "In the beginning, God created…." Any claim of 6,000 years of cosmic history is an interpretation of the text based on the subjective opinion of the exegete. In other words, 6,000 years is MAN'S OPINION of Genesis just as millions of years of cosmic history is man's opinion.

A literal interpretation of 24 hour days is plausible; it just isn't necessary.

Mortenson is sending me a paper he is preparing for the Evangelical Theological Socieity, where he critiques three leading evangelical systemic theologies on their opinions of the age of the earth. They each hold the opinion I hold, the age of the earth is a non-essential doctrine. (He is reviewing Erickson, Grudem, and Lewis & Demarest.)

The other theological issue Mortenson raises is the issue of animal death before the fall. His question is— How can God's creation be very good if there was millions of years of animal death? He sees the violent, carnivorous activity of animals killing and eating each other BEFORE THE FALL as incompatible with the goodness of God. He holds the opinion that all animals were vegetarians before the fall.

The issue is often worded with an emotional appeal: How could the good Garden of Eden be built on an animal grave yeard?

I don't think the text (Genesis 1&2) leads us to know the age of the earth. I don't see the text leading me to see millions of years of cosmic or human history, but I don't see the text leading me to see 6,000 years of history either. I also do not see the Scripture leading me to believe that animal death came after the fall and I don't see the Scripture leading me to place such a high value on animal death.

Here is my response to Mortenson on the issue of animal death.

• The biblical text is rather silent on animal death.
  
  
• The biblical text is clear on human death as a result of sin.
  
  
• Animal death is never connected to human death in biblical descriptions of death as a penalty for sin. The animal kingdom was cursed as a part of creation. This curse came as a result of man's sin, but animal death is never clearly connected to Adam's sin.
  
  
• Animal death is never clearly described as intrinsically evil, bad, or contrary to the goodness of God. Mortenson's claim that animal death is incompatible with the goodness of God is an assumption.
  
  
• A high value of animal life is closer to an pantheistic worldview than a biblical worldview. It is true that God created animals different than plants. Animals are living creatures (Hebrew: nephesh chayyah), but they are certainly not living creatures like human beings. The view that God is in everything (pantheism) would teach that there is "divine life" in animals and therefore they deserve the same respect as human beings. You see this in Buddhism, which does not see "God" in everything, but see the "essence of life" in all living things.
  
  
• Psalm 74:14 and Psalm 104:21 describe God as involved in animals killing other animals for food. Even if this is after the Fall, it doesn't change the issue of God's nature and animal death. The Fall affected creation, not the nature of God. These verses give evidence that animal death is not contrary to the goodness of God.
  
  
• "How could God's very good creation be built on an animal grave yard?" – is more of an emotional appeal than a rational or biblical appeal. The artwork used in Mortenson's presentation also makes an appeal to people's emotional response to animal death. This clouds the issue and creates an emotional bias when people look to the Scripture on the issue of animal death.
  
  
• Mortenson's claim that all animals where created to be vegetarians is a possible interpretation, but I find it problematic. Sure, some carnivores like lions can become vegetarian, but what about great white sharks? Do you mean that they were created to live on sea grass? This argument is a real stretch both biblically and biologically. Yes some carnivores may have mainly vegetarian diets, but to say that ALL animals were created to eat NO meat is too difficult of an position to maintain.
  
  
• It seems that the issue of animal death after the fall did not come from following the trajectory of the text. Rather, it seems to have come from the necessarily of holding to a young earth view. They fight so hard to hold to 6,000 years, but when they look at the fossil record they see animal death. They are then forced into this statement that all animals died after the fall. It is an unnecessary position and it stretches the meaning of Scripture too far for me. Mortenson himself admitted that some Young Earth Creationists try to make Romans 5:14 say that death in that verse included animal death. The context of Romans 5:14 is clearly talking about human death.
  

So where am I in this debate between Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists? I certainly have a new found appreciation for the Young Earth position. Mortenson has really thought through the issues of the Young Earth view. He even admits that there are some areas of development. The Young Earthers still don't have a good defense of their view of a young universe in light of astrophysics and the light from stars. He said they are working on it, but they don't have a lock-tight defense yet. How can the universe be 6,000 years old when we know the speed of light and know that stars are billions of miles away? I appreciate his honesty and humility to admit that the Young Earthers don't have it all figured out yet.

So where am I in the debate between Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists?

I am quite convinced that I am a creationist, no other adjectives needed. This position is where the biblical text has led me. It leads me to God, the maker of heaven and earth. I would say that the age of the earth is somewhere between 13.7 billion years old and 6,000 years old! Somewhere in between those two numbers is the truth, but as of yet, I am undecided.

This is the theological high ground on the issue of the age of the earth. To say for certain that we know the universe is 6,000 years old is to put us in a position of authority of the biblical text which doesn't make this claim. Whenever we get too puffed up in confidence in our interpretation of the age of the earth, we need God to show up like he did with Job and ask, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" After all the answers are not in Genesis; the answers are not in creation; the answers are in the Creator.

One last thought from John Calvin:

"We are drawn away from all fictions to the one God who distributed his work into six days that we might not find it irksome to occupy our life in contemplating it. " John Calvin, Institutes I.14.2

Let's not become irksome on this issue of the age of the earth.
Let's worship God, the maker of heaven and earth.
Let's defend the authority of Scripture over the faulty assumptions of evolution.

...but lets give up this fight over the right interpretation of the age of the earth.

Justice

Today is Martin Luther King (MLK) Day. A national holiday. No schools today. No banks opened. It is a day of celebration. I know there are some who question why MLK should be celebrated when there are a number of American leaders that are snubbed in the list of national holidays. All of the presidents combined only get one day… all rolled in one!

MLK Day is more than just the celebration of a man. MLK is more than a man anyway; he has become a myth. This doesn't mean that MLK didn't exist. We often wrongly believe that "myth" equals "untruth." It is not that myth is not true. Rather myth is a truth that has become bigger than mere historical fact. Webster's defines myth as a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. We discussed the Genesis myth in our Men's Fraternity Sunday morning. Myth is a truth that powerfully shapes the way we reason, the way we think. Myth shapes how we look at life and at each other.

MLK Day is not so much the celebration of a man, but the celebration of a movement. The man became a myth and the movement became a myth. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was more than an issue of black's rights. It was an issue of justice.

To seek justice among people is a part of the kingdom of God. The Bible uses the word "justice" 132 times. The Jewish prophet Amos spoke on the issue of justice. One of his prophetic themes is the need for justice in addition to right worship. You can construct occasions of worship that seem proper, but without justice, without people treating people fairly, right worship is empty. Amos, speaking on God's behalf, declares:

I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.
Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!
Amos 5:21-24

I was surprised to learn that Bob Dylan (a Jewish prophet in his own right!) sang at the 1963 march on Washington, where MLK delivered his now famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Dylan sang with Joan Baez. [video] He also sang "Only A Pawn in Their Game"
at the Washington march. He sang it in the same prophetic tradition as Amos. He sang it as a cry for justice.

Only A Pawn in Their Game (1963)
Bob Dylan

A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers' blood.
A finger fired the trigger to his name.
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man's brain
But he can't be blamed
He's only a pawn in their game.

A South politician preaches to the poor white man,
"You got more than the blacks, don't complain.
You're better than them, you been born with white skin," they explain.
And the Negro's name
Is used it is plain
For the politician's gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid,
And the marshals and cops get the same,
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool.
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

From the poverty shacks, he looks from the cracks to the tracks,
And the hoof beats pound in his brain.
And he's taught how to walk in a pack
Shoot in the back
With his fist in a clinch
To hang and to lynch
To hide 'neath the hood
To kill with no pain
Like a dog on a chain
He ain't got no name
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

Today, Medgar Evers was buried from the bullet he caught.
They lowered him down as a king.
But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
He'll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
Only a pawn in their game.

Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music

Bob Dylan & Joan Baez at the Washington March 1963.

Reflections on the Maker of Heaven and Earth

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.

And so the biblical narrative begins. God's story begins with a line packed with weighty truth that cannot be unpacked in one attempt (although I will try). It is a worthwhile trip to stroll through the past. I do know that I cannot adequately piece together the present without understanding the past.

The past gives meaning to the present.
The past frames together the present.
The past floods the present with meaning.
The past shapes the present with values and perspective.

The past gives meaning to the present. Many of the— Why are things like this? –questions can be answered by looking to history. We are either formed by our past or we act in deliberate response to our past. Our past has made us this way or we choose to act this way (be this way?) because of our past. I continue to do things in the tradition of my past either consciously or unconsciously or I may reject the traditions of my past and do things differently. Either way I am grounded in my past. This works on an individual level and on a societal level.

Racism in the deep South where I live, work, play, and pastor is deeply rooted in a past of racial strife and division. Sumter County, Georgia where I live has a virtually unknown chapter in the civil rights struggle of the 1960s in part through Koinonia Farms. Why is there an obvious cultural difference between the white community and the black community in Sumter County? A look into our past tells the story of the present.

The past gives meaning to the present.

This holds true as we look to the ultimate past, the past before written history, the past before the great empires, the past which began at creation, the past which was in the beginning.

In the beginning God…

The Scriptures begin with an introduction of the central figure of the story…God. The creation account of Genesis is the story of the Creator. The ancient creeds of the Christian faith all begin with the confession of God the maker of heaven and earth.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. (Nicene Creed 381 AD)

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. (Apostle's Creed)

The story of creation is the story of the Creator. Before the creation of the universe, the earth, plants, animals and people, there was GOD. He existed as a self-sufficient, eternal community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What was God doing before creation?

A good question, but not one that will lead to any answers. In The Institutes, John Calvin wrote that a "shameless fellow mockingly asked a pious old man" what God was doing before creation and the pious old man whipped back and said, "building a hell for the curious." (I.14.1) I didn't know Calvin was one for the jokes!

We don't know what happened before "in the beginning," but we know that God's creation began with the creation of the heavens and the earth…in other words…the creation of the universe. He created all that is seen and unseen out of nothing (creation ex nihilo). We call what we do "creativity," but only God can really create. We can form, fashion, shape, take things a part and put them back together again. We can rework things, but only God can create something out of nothing.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Albert Barnes notes that this one verse does much to establish what we believe about God and distinguish it from other views.

Genesis 1 denies:

• atheism – It declares the existence of God.
  
• polytheism – It declares one God created.
  
• materialism – It declares there is something more than stuff.
  
• pantheism –It declares that God is separate from creation.
  
• fatalism – It declares the freedom of God.
  

All of this in ten words….in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

These ten words not only establish right doctrine, but they establish right worship. [We use the word "orthodoxy" to describe right Christian doctrine, but the word literally means "right praise."] The creation account in Genesis 1 is written in poetic prose. There is a liturgical rhythm to it that invites us into the text.

The Genesis account is poetic, but it is also true. Poetry is not necessarily fictitious. Very often poetry tells the truth better than strict prose. It not only tells the truth better, but it invites us to live in the truth. Eugene Peterson observes in Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places that we are called to live in the rhythm of the text. God set the rhythm as work, work, work—work, work, work—rest. As Peterson points out, we too often abuse the rhythm of time by procrastination or hurry. We are faced with the temptation to waste time or rush past time.

God calls us to work (x6) and rest. This was the rhythm he set in the beginning. We are called to walk to this rhythm, live to the rhythm, raise families within this rhythm. Wesley wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1, "And let our make and place, as men, mind us of our duty, as Christians, which is always to keep heaven in our eye, and the earth under our feet.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

When we clearly see God as creator, our hearts are moved to worship. (The fight is in removing the distractions in order to see him clearly!) When I see God as Maker of heaven and earth I am suddenly reminded that I am a guest here. This is his world not mine. Yes I am a son. Yes I am to be a steward (manager) of his creation. Yes I have rights (including all the deplorable terms—dominion, rulership, authority, etc.) But still this is my Father's world. As an invited, and indeed created, guest, I observe all that was put here for me to enjoy. I must look past all the destruction of sin and see what God has put in his creation. He adorned his creation with beauty, food, sex, friendship, laughter, mysteries to explore—all for my good and enjoyment and ultimately for his glory. Why would I not praise him and delight in his ways?

In this acknowledgment of God as Creator, worship becomes the overflow of enjoyment and gratitude. It is like falling in love. N.T. Wright writes, "When you fall in love, when you're ready to through yourself at the feat of your beloved, what you desire, above all, is union" (Simply Christian, pg 148). What you ought to do is overwhelmed by what you want to do when you fall in love. You ought to pursue relationships that lead to marriage, but when you fall in love you want to get married. Obligation is flooded with desire. This is getting me closer to worshipping the Maker of heaven and earth.

One final thought from Wright:

Worship makes you more truly human. When you gaze in love and gratitude at the God in whose image you were made, you do indeed grow. You discover more of what it means to be fully alive.

Emerging Charismatics

The latest Barna report is entitled, "Is American Christianity Turning Charismatic?" The report is made up of two different studies showing that "Pentecostal perspectives and practices has grown significantly in the past two decades." While conversations about Pentecostalism tend to bring up images of snake-handling or Elmer-Gantry-inspired televangelists, the reality is that Pentecostal/charismatic doctrines, practices, and spirituality is spreading in the United States.

Any discussion of Pentecostalism requires definitions. What exactly is Pentecostal and charismatic? In their research, the Barna group classified a charismatic or Pentecostal as respondents who "have been filled by the Holy Spirit and believe that the charismatic gifts, such as tongues and healing, are valid and active today."

Here is what the report revealed:

• Half of evangelical adults (49%) fit the charismatic definition.
  
• Nearly half of all adults who attend a Protestant church (46%) are charismatic.
  
• One out of every four Protestant churches in the United States (23%) is a charismatic congregation.
  
• Four out of every ten non-denominational churches (40%) are charismatic.
  
• Almost one-quarter of all charismatics in the U.S. (22%) are Catholic.
  
• 7% of Southern Baptist churches and 6% of mainline churches are charismatic.
  
• Charismatic ministries are more likely than other Protestant churches to use five of the seven technological applications evaluated dispelling the myth that charismatic churches are only rural or unsophisticated.
  

Barna notes that the growth of Pentecostalism in the United States coincides with cultural trends. This includes the emerging generation's lack of interest in the debates of Pentecostal doctrine from the past. Barna notes, "We are moving toward a future in which the charismatic-fundamentalist split will be an historical footnote rather than a dividing line within the body of believers. Young Christians, in particular, have little energy for the arguments that have traditionally separated charismatics and non-charismatics. Increasing numbers of people are recognizing that there are more significant arenas in which to invest their resources." I agree. Doug Banister declared an end to the war between evangelicals and charismatics years ago in his wonderful book, The Word and Power Church (1999).

Charismatic doctrines and practices are spreading throughout evangelical churches in the United States. And yet, I find myself redefining my own faith and ministry in ways that seems less charismatic. I first began to wrestle with this in a November 2006 blog. Subsequent to this blog, I declared to my congregation that I had "packed my bags" and left the charismatic movement. The declaration was awkward and a bit over-stated, but "packing my bags" was the only metaphor that seemed to fit. I found it much more honest to define myself as a Trinitarian Christian than a charismatic Christian.

As I have reflected for more than a year on the reclassification of my Christian experience, I have come to find that I haven't left Pentecostal/charismatic doctrine as much as I have left a Pentecostal/charismatic subculture.

A subculture can be indenified by a number of things, but I would define a Pentecostal/charismatic subculture by the following eight values: anti-intellectual, hyper-emotional, ahistorical, spiritual elitism, selective hermeneutic, pragmatic spirituality, cultural disdain, and over-realized eschatology. Here is a fuller explaination:

Values of a Pentecostal/charismatic Subculture

Anti-intellectual
Charismatics typically do not value an intellectual approach to the faith. Systematic theology and scholastic methods of biblical study are ignored or viewed with suspicion. Rigorous academic training is considered unimportant for ministry training. Reason is not out-right rejected, but it is subordinate to "spiritual revelation."

Hyper-emotional
Charismatic worship typically evokes an emotional response. However within the subculture, emotional reactions become the sign of spirituality. It is assumed that a person's connection to the Holy Spirit is measured emotionally. Frequently charismatic worship services are valued in terms of how the congregation is moved emotionally.

Ahistorical
Pentecostal/charismatics have prided themselves for more than 100 years that they are free from the constraints of "traditionalism." They tend to celebrate their own history within the Christian story, but do not lend value to Church history unless it reflects charismatic distinctives. There is little discussion of the creeds or the ecumenical councils.

Spiritual-elitism
The ugliest side of the Pentecostal/charismatic subculture is the subtle arrogance that those who are "Spirit-filled" are somehow more advanced in those spiritual journey than those who are not "Spirit-filled" (as defined by charismatics). This value prevents some charismatics from reading books from other Christian traditions or entering into to Christian community with non-charismatics.

Selective hermeneutic
Charismatics, like any Christian subculture, have their favorite Scripture verses. A good charismatic has the verses on the Holy Spirit, healing, deliverance, prophecy, spiritual gifts, blessings, and prosperity underlined or highlighted in their Bible. This obsessive highlighting causes them to overlook the verses on suffering, self-sacrifice, contentment, and hardship that are a part of the Christian life.

Pragmatic spirituality
The Pentecostal/charismatic subculture has a way of discussing life in the Spirit that is subjective, personal, and consumer-driven. The blessings of God (spiritual, physical, or material) are proclaimed for the use of the individual. You can order your own blessings through Christian television or by entering your credit card into any charismatic ministry's website. For any size "love gift" you can receive all sorts of "ministry resources" that will (of course) bless your life.

Cultural disdain
The Pentecostal/charismatic subculture grew out of holiness revivals. The downside to this holiness background is a disdain for culture. The term "secular culture" is synonymous with "the evils of Satan." Art, beauty, music, etc. must carry with it a Christian label, without which it is simply sinful. Such a disdain for "secular" culture isolates charismatics from the rest of the world, creating a challenge for the missional life of the Church. It also makes charismatics look weird.

Over-realized eschatology
This theological extreme includes an over-powering apocalyptic vision, triumphalism, and the like. The essential problem is that many charismatics believe that the end has already come. The power and victory that is waiting for us at the end of the world has come now and thus Christians should live "in complete victory as an overcomer." The truth is that the kingdom has already come and yet is still coming. In other words, we do get to taste moments of "victory," but complete victory will not be secured until Jesus returns. We have not arrived. We have a long way to go.

Rejecting these values and leaving the charismatic movement does not mean that I have lost any of the charismatic doctrinal distictives that I picked up while I was in the movement. I still pray in tongues (i.e. speak in tongues). I still believe in prophecy. I still lay hands on the sick and pray for miracles of healing. I am just no longer a living in the subculture.

I have struggled with vocabulary to describe what this is that I am moving into. It is an emerging charismatic journey of sorts. The emerging church is a conversation of like-minded Christians within evangelicalism. They are asking questions and challenging the assumptions of fundamentalists. I find the language of the emerging church to be helpful in explain what this is that I am moving into…it seems that I am becoming a emerging charismatic.

Reading and Listening in 2008

So it is the second week of 2008 and I have yet to post a blog in this new year. Shame, shame… So here is a few snapshots of the last few weeks.

Reading
I have been working through NT Wright's Simply Christian. I don't know how simple this would be for people that do not have a philosophical, historical, and religious background. I listened to a lecture Wright gave as part of the Veritas Forum where he gave the impression that Simply Christian is somewhat of a primer for those who want to explore the Christian faith, somewhat of a contemporary Mere Christianity. (Note the similarity in the titles.) It is a primer of sorts, but only for the educated. I wouldn't put this book in the hands of someone outside of the Faith who wanted to explore what Christians believe unless they had a background in philosophy and world history. With that said, I like Wright's style a great deal. I have this irrational dislike for British authors, but I like Wright a great deal. He has a great poetic style to his writing. He is full of great metaphors. I particularly like his metaphor of searching for God through the classical arguments for the existence of God (ontological, teleological, etc.). Wright says it is like looking for the sun with a flashlight. He doesn't spend enough time building on this great image of looking for God is like staring at the sun. It has great references back to Plato (see The Allegory of the Cave). The "echo of voices" is also a wonderful way of reflected on humanity's common desire to pursue transcendence, spirituality, God. I have already added a second Wright book to my Amazon Wish List. So we will see. Maybe he will redeem my view of British writers.

Listening
Dylan, Dylan and more Dylan….
I added three albums to my growing Dylan collection. MTV Unplugged (1994),
Live 1975, Oh Mercy (1989). I am thirteen months into my Dylan journey. I now have 14 albums. Dylan has released 44 in total, so I am not even half way through the journey! There is too much here to discuss, but a recently verse from Dylan has really stood out to me. It is from Desolation Row. DR was originally recorded on Highway 61 Revisited(1965), but for whatever reason I missed the song. I have really connected with it on this 1994 MTV Unplugged album. Here is the verse:

Now Ophelia, she's 'neath the window
For her I feel so afraid
On her twenty-second birthday
She already is an old maid

To her, death is quite romantic
She wears an iron vest
Her profession's her religion
Her sin is her lifelessness
And though her eyes are fixed upon
Noah's great rainbow
She spends her time peeking
Into Desolation Row

Poor Ophelia. Her sin isn't immorality or drunkenness. Her sin is lifelessness. She worships the idol of consumerism. Her work is her religion. She can see hope in God's promise (Noah's rainbow), but she remains lifeless because instead of turning to God…she spends her time on desolation row.

In the News
On Christmas Eve riots broke out in Orissa in North India. Radical Hindus formed mobs that turned violent, destroying churches, Christian homes, and shops owned by Christians. It is some of the worst violence towards Christians in India in recent history. [Read more here]

IET has a strong presence in Orissa and a number of IET believers were affected. Here are the stats we received from IET:

• 15 IET churches were damaged/burned (over 200 total)
  
• 100 IET believers are missing (more than 300 total)
  
• About 200 homes of IET believers have been burned (more than 1200 total)
  
• About 5 IET believers were killed (total dead unknown)
  
• More than 100 believers were seriously injured
  
• One motorbike and 10 bicycles of IET missionaries were burned
  
• More than 100 believers were seriously injured
  
• Thousands of people are staying in hiding in fear for their lives
  

We are receiving a special offering this Sunday at Cornerstone Church for Orissa. IET is preparing relief kits with blankets, food, and clothes for Christians in need. For more information on IET's relief efforts go to www.ietmissions.blogspot.com.