Church leaders & believing our own hype

Churches and denominations are often guilty of talking themselves up in unrealistic ways. In certain charismatic and Pentecostal churches, for example, there is the perception that their calmer brethren are devoid of the Spirit. In the non-denominational church that I grew up in we seemed to think that the big Anglican church down the road was where our lukewarm members would defect to if they tired of our zeal and wanted to be anonymous.

One of the long-standing fictions that has befouled the denomination in which I now serve (and which in some measure is most likely true of every church) is that we are “getting it right” in a way that other churches are not. We have the Spirit (unlike the mainline churches). We have the Spirit without performative excesses (unlike the charismatics). We teach the Bible faithfully and well (and people only don’t flock to come hear us because we don’t tell itching ears what they want to hear).

All of us (I guess) believe our way is right, or else surely we’d do things another way, and so such prejudices are part of being human. Fortunately, many of our leaders have been self-critical enough to oppose such silly rhetoric.

Nevertheless, there is a fiction that our leaders might need to recognise in themselves, and that I think is universal enough to be worth raising more generally. For all our talk of servant leadership, it seems as though we actually have some difficulty coping with positions of authority, especially when a leader is clearly gifted in certain areas, and when God has used such leaders in the past. It can become difficult for such people to relinquish control or to acknowledge that God might gift and use others (even in their own congregation) without their help or permission.

I am prompted to bring it up because I discovered an interesting formulation of the problem in a book I am now reading about the prophet Samuel by an author named Marti Steussy.

Steussy is asking the question whether Samuel the prophet perhaps isn’t entirely blameless in the conflicts with Saul, and whether he isn’t motivated a little bit by the rejection of his own leadership and a desire to see Saul fail? (I think I probably disagree with her suggestions in this case, but nevertheless, the question is good. Whether one sees it in Samuel or not, it is certainly true that all of Israel’s leaders were deeply mixed characters, and it is appropriate to ask whether they are behaving rightly at any given point.) About the possibility that Samuel is over-stepping in his old age, Steussy writes:

“I have heard yet another kind of reaction to Samuel from students whose church traditions accord extremely high respect and authority to the pastor. A handful of such students have told me that Samuel reminds them of pastors they have known… These mentors were powerful, well-loved leaders who had earned respect by years of wise advice and courageous leadership. But eventually their leadership would be challenged, and the results could be ugly. The pastors seemed unable to accept that others might responsibly differ in their assessments of where the church should go. Too quickly, sometimes, the pastors equated questioning of their own programs with disobedience to God… Sometimes they used their power not only to resist but to punish those who, in their view, stepped out of line… Always they were hurt and confused by what they perceived as the ungratefulness of their congregations.” (Samuel and his God, p. 6)

Now I am not disputing that there is a legitimate problem when members of a congregation become divisive and oppose the pastor in ungodly ways. However, it is surely necessary to acknowledge that there is equally a possibility for leaders to become too convinced of their own centrality to what goes on in a congregation? Surely leaders can assert their leadership in ways that are arrogant or divisive or controlling?

Batman at the end of The Dark Knight preferred to die a hero rather than to live long enough to become the villain, and my concern is that leaders all run the risk of neglecting the wisdom of this idea. Countries often become enslaved to their old liberators, and church leaders too can become guilty of believing their own hype.

As wrong as Israel’s request for a king might have been, Samuel had raised wicked sons and intended to hand the reins over to them. When the people resisted that idea, he took it to be that they were rejecting his leadership. God had to re-align his thinking even on that point. Samuel’s leadership was only ever a proxy of God’s own rule—it was God they were rejecting.

The Apostle Paul, on the other hand (himself not a blameless character), was able to view opposition to his ministry with remarkable humility. When other preachers were trying to raise their own profile and add to his misery in prison—genuine selfishness on their part—what was Paul’s response? At least the gospel is being preached! (Php. 1:18)

Similarly, Christian leaders need to take extreme care that they cultivate humility and a deep sense of the precarious responsibility that they exercise. We who hold some position of leadership need to acknowledge with Paul that our achievements are losses (Php. 3:7) and that our only responsibility is the advance of the gospel. We might be called shepherds of the flock, but we are not owners. In another real sense, we are sheep ourselves. Whatever role you might think you have, it is Christ who is the head, and he demands that we recognise that our place in the body is limited and partial. The minister needs the church more than the church needs the minister: “The body does not consist of one member but of many” (1Co 12:14), and “to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1Co 12:7). Ministers do not lead a dumb flock; on the contrary, the point of good leadership is to facilitate the exercise of everyone’s gifts.

All Christians, but our leaders most especially, need to consciously and regularly remove ourselves from any thoughts that we are central to God’s plan. We are to remember that whatever gifts we have are lent to us, and they are to be humbly exercised for the gospel, for the many, and for the common good.

If it takes deep humility to become a Christian, how much more does it take to lead other Christians? May God help us all to give humility pride-of-place among the virtues.

Californian ‘Pastor’ on Florida Massacre

In the news today, a Californian ‘pastor’ found his biggest ever audience after his message about the attack on the gay club in Florida went global.

In his message, he called for ‘normal people’ to stand up against wickedness—a call that I think I ought to answer.

He also claimed that the uproar about his message is an attack on free speech, but this is incorrect. Free speech encourages the testing of ideas in the market of public opinion; it is the same free speech that allows him to say such things that also allows the rest of us to respond with vitriol and abhorrence—a response to which I think I would like to add.

The substance of his message is that Romans 1 identifies homosexuals as wicked and deserving of death, and thus we should not mourn at the death of 50 ‘sodomites’, but should see it as ‘great’. We should rather mourn that someone didn’t ‘finish the job’.

Somehow he also manages to claim that the Bible says that all homosexuals are predators and pedophiles, which it doesn’t, and he encourages his listeners to find the verse where Paul says that the wicked ‘receive in themselves the due penalty for their perversion’, and next to it write ‘AIDS’.

You can watch the nauseating highlights package here.

There is so much wrong with what that man says that I imagine that most of us think it is self-evident from a Christian perspective. Yet this is an occasion on which I think it should not go without saying. So let me make a few corrections first of the theory:

  • None of what that man says is ‘the word of God’, as he claims. Preachers throw that phrase around far too much. The Bible may well be the word of God, but interpretation of it is the word of man. Stop pinning the idiotic mess of an interpretation that you’ve made on God.
  • Homosexuality may well be a sin, according to the Bible, but look more carefully at what Romans 1 is saying. Paul gives dual realms in which rebellion against God leads to debasement: the first is bodily (1:24) and the example given is of homosexuality (for reasons not worth going into now). The second realm is in the mind (1:28) and note what expressions of debasement it leads to: the full gamut from murder to gossip, slander and disobedience to one’s parents. It is the end of these people that is death (1:32).

So according to the argument of the text that this ‘pastor’ claims to be using, sin is idolatry (the rejection of God for substitutes); it expresses itself in various ways, including covetousness and gossip; and everyone who sins has a death penalty over them. So if we’re to rejoice at the death of the homosexual, then we must rejoice also at the death of the nice gossipy old lady who sits in church every week.

And indeed, if slander is among these crimes worthy of death, what must be done with the man who slanders homosexuals by claiming that they are all predators and pedophiles?

Let’s take further issue with the manner of that man’s sermon. Leaving aside his slander, how is it that one can read the Bible and still be arrogant towards those who sin? Has he not realised (if he has indeed been forgiven) the magnitude of his own debt from which he has been released? Perhaps God will spare him that penalty of death, but does he deserve it any less?

Oddly, in spite of choosing a text from this section, he has failed to understand the overall (and very obvious) point of Romans 1-3, namely, that there is no one who is righteous before God, but that everyone is under the penalty of death—even the self-righteous law-keeper who delights in condemning the sins of the outsider (Romans 2:1-24).

Listen to what Paul says about homosexuality elsewhere:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1Corinthians 6:9-11)

It’s all very well railing on the ‘sinner’ deserving death, but if Christianity is about one thing, it’s about seeing oneself in that hopeless position, not railing on the outsider.

In fact, Paul makes this explicit just a chapter earlier. It is often said that Christians should not judge, but Paul disagrees. We should judge, he says. Only we should judge those within the church. Observe:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of [Christian] if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. (1Corinthians 5:11-13a)

I wish Christians would put this verse on a fridge-magnet. Why do we never hear  fiery evangelical sermons on this subject? Perhaps Verity Baptist Church can consider this passage for their next sermon series? The sinner that the church should be interested in judging and expelling is this revolting pastor. God will determine what is to be done to those on the outside.

Homosexuality is regarded as a sin in the Bible, but the same Bible tells us to love the sinner and mourn for those who die far from God. Anyone who thinks that God approves of their hate best beware:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And [Jesus] answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5)


Baptism and Laager Mentality

This is a very soulless image of a laager, but it was between this and the glorification of colonial slaughter of the Zulu, so I guess this is the second-most-soulless.

This is a very soulless image of a laager, but it was between this and the glorification of colonial slaughter of the Zulu, so I guess this is the second-most-soulless.

In South Africa, we refer to a certain variety of beer as lager. I don’t know what it is called elsewhere in the world. I know they have lots of varieties of beers in the UK, including lager I think, and they don’t make beer in the US. They just have Budweiser and the like. #lazyburn

But a laager is something else. It refers to a defensive wagon formation in which they would form a circle around the vulnerable like a wall, and defenders need only be posted at the gaps.* Laager mentality therefore refers to the tendency to get defensive about your ‘camp’ and to barricade your group off from criticism.

* (Wikipedia tells me that this is called “circling the wagons” in the US.)

In researching the stand-off between ‘camps’ on the matter of Christian baptism, I found that bad arguments are common from advocates from each camp—whether for the baptism of infants or of believers only. Yet, I was quite surprised that some of the best examples of fallacious arguments came from highly regarded biblical scholars, and all I can ascribe it to is the tendency for us to ‘retreat behind the wagons’ on controversial matters such as this—we end up defending our camp rather than honestly interrogating our own position.

For example, on the matter of immersion one such scholar insists that all NT references that hint at the mode of baptism imply full immersion, and that the word itself means ‘to immerse’. This ignores at least Mark 7, which says that the Jews “do not eat unless they wash (baptize). And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (baptism) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches”. In this text, baptism is clearly a reference to ceremonial cleansing, and it clearly could not have been performed by full immersion each mealtime in the case of dining couches.

It also ignores that several paedobaptist denominations insist that even infants ought to be immersed in baptism, so even if this argument carried water it hardly solves the problem.

three_viewsLaager mentality also cripples IVP’s discussion of baptism in their “Three Views…” format. In this book, key proponents of the two major baptismal positions (and one more minor one) present their positions and then each have an opportunity to critique one another’s view. These books can be a great way of being introduced to the main issues and to what is at stake, but it also forces the scholar to represent his team in the most typical way possible. In the case of the baptism debate, it really only perpetuates the same-old arguments that have failed to be persuasive for centuries, and serves to deepen the sense that it is a debate at an impasse.

Laager mentality makes for defensive and polarized discussions, and it means that really hearing one another or making room for new ideas are impossible. Troubled Waters aims at working out the baptism argument from its foundations, and finding a new route through an old problem. I hope that it can shed some light on the way forward in this debate.

The ebook of Troubled Waters is currently on promotion for free download here.

It can be printed on demand through Amazon (substantially less free) here.

TW Cover Final

Troubled Waters: eBook Now Published

TW Cover FinalOver the last few years, I have been working on-and-off on the topic of baptism. As someone who grew up on the Baptist side of the fence but, after moving city, found myself in a paedobaptist Anglican church, I have an appreciation for the perspectives–and the accompanying strength of emotion–of each ‘camp’, which has helped me understand how each side argues, and why each side is unable to properly understand the other.

More than this, my work has led me to a point where I believe I have been able to make some headway through an argument that stands at something of an impasse. Indeed, the fashion in publishing on these kinds of issues is to have scholars from each camp present their views side-by-side (such as Bridge & Phypers’ 1998 book, The Water that Divides, or David Wright’s 2009 edition, Baptism: Three Views). All this really achieves is to further entrench the tendency to talk past one another. In Troubled Waters I have focused on the causes of misunderstanding and the flaws in traditional arguments, while trying to build a better argument from the ground up.

The major reason for our inability to understand one another lies in the fact that even Bible-believing Christians on either side base their beliefs about baptism upon at least two foundational doctrines that rarely if ever are discussed: baptism is founded on our beliefs about the covenants (particularly whether Old and New Covenants are more continuous or more discontinuous) and beliefs about the nature of the church (particularly whether the church is made up of regenerate [born-again]  members only, or whether the church should be understood as mixed). Because we differ on these matters, our beliefs about baptism are incompatible with the other camp’s foundations, and therefore appear foolish (or even heretical). And so our discussions for about 400 years have been frustrating attempts to make our view of baptism seem sensible to the other camp, without any attempt at laying the foundations upon which our view depends.

This book is (among other things) a discussion of those foundations, and so it examines biblical evidence that is not usually associated with baptism. This evidence, however, seems properly to support only one of these baptismal camps, and thus may provide a way forward to settle the baptism debate once and for all.

You can get Troubled Waters as an ebook directly from Smashwords, or soon from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and several other retailers.

Foley and Izzard: Funny but unfair

In quick succession I came upon a series of unconnected posts in which atheist comedians have a go at God and religion. I don’t mind in principle—there is plenty in religious spheres to critique and to poke fun at—but two of the bits that I saw most recently claim as a weakness things that are actually among the greatest strengths of Christianity.

Dave Foley: Faith is like belief in Santa Claus

Foley on atheism and religion. Click pic to watch

Foley and comedy jacket on atheism and religion. Click pic to watch.

Dave Foley is perhaps best known for playing a lead role in the vastly underrated 90s sitcom News Radio. His stand-up seems not to have hit News Radio heights, and in this mostly awkward sketch (among other things) he describes people of faith as ‘creepy’, and compares believers to grown people who believe in Santa—adding that we’d be treated as lunatics if there weren’t so many of us.

I’m not sure why this analogy is so widely thought to be valid. Perhaps it is due to the common mistake that atheists make of conflating all religions together as though Jesus and Jim Jones and Juno are all basically the same. The example that Foley gives of religious craziness is that of transubstantiation in Catholicism: the bread and wine actually (not figuratively) become Jesus’ body and blood (though not in any way that affects taste or form). But this was the kind of thing that the Western world fought a fairly well-known war over in the 1500s. The Protestant world told the pope that we’re tired of this nonsense about 500 years ago.

The comparison with Santa is a false one for several reasons, but the most important one being historicity. Even if Saint Nick was a real person, Santa mythology about the North Pole and the world’s worst commute on Christmas Eve has no basis in reality. Believing it would be an act of willful self-delusion. And perhaps most religious beliefs are of the same order. The point is that the Bible has always differentiated itself from ‘the gods of the nations’ because of God’s acts in history. The old prophets repeatedly mocked people who cut down a tree and used part of it for the fire and part for furniture and part to make a god to worship. And the whole argument of Christianity from the minute it left Jerusalem was that Jesus rose from the dead and brought forgiveness, as he said he would—something has happened in history.

Disbelieve it if you like, but unlike Santa, the existence of God is not a priori an irrational idea, and unlike Santa, Jesus’ resurrection is an historical claim for which there is evidence to be weighed. I know it is annoying to have to carefully dismiss evidence that you have no interest in believing, but in much the same way as the argument ‘Evolution is stupid because just look at the human eye!’ is really annoying, atheists should stop doing a discredit to themselves by trying to make the Jesus-Santa link stick.

Eddie Izzard: God’s plan


Eddie Izzard is a brilliant comedian, and as much as I wanted to hate ‘Glorious’, his deeply irreverent take on history and the Bible from the 90s, it is undeniably funny. His famous quote about God’s plan is doing the rounds again, and while I can imagine it being hilarious when he says it, it surely doesn’t take too long to realise that this is actually a rather foolish critique.

The main reason why it doesn’t work is that the ability to understand a plan demands several things that Eddie Izzard does not apprehend. One needs firstly to understand the problem that the plan addresses. In the case of the biblical storyline, the issues are human rebellion, consequent disruption of divine-human relationship, and the problem of evil and death that result from that. Eddie doesn’t say what he thinks the problem is, but I would put money on it not being the one that God’s book identifies. I suspect what people such as Izzard usually think the goal should be is total human happiness and otherwise being left alone, which ironically cuts against what God is trying to do quite severely.

Secondly, understanding a plan requires a grasp of the ‘rules of the game’. Complaints about the problem of evil usually demand that God should intervene in history in order to stop bad things from happening. However, these complaints rarely get specific about how God should go about doing this. Seeing as most of the world’s evils are human evils, God would  seem to me to have two major paths open to Him to stop human evil. He could kill the wrong-doer without delay, which would mean the death of Adam & Eve and (however literally you take that story) the eradication of humankind. This would mean the failure of His goal to restore divine-human relationship. So delay then.

The second route is to miraculously intervene every time someone is about to do something bad so as to prevent the crime (a bit like Minority report). But then it doesn’t take too much thinking before one realises that this would need to be carried out on the level of speech, and probably even on the level of thought (because most evil actions begin there). So God would have to remove the consequences of our evil impulses either by miraculously staying our hands and tongues, or by eradicating the freedom of will altogether. Again, this would be failure of the goal, because it replaces relationship with slavery. So a cure then.

If it’s to be a cure, then that’s what Christianity has always said He’s always been doing. You may protest that He’s taking awfully long about it, but again as has long been said, if God is taking His time at least it means you have the opportunity to take part in the cure.

The final thing that one needs in order to understand a plan is a grasp of the strategy by which the goal is being pursued. This is the part that Izzard clearly has an issue with, but is there any surprise in that? Does Izzard expect that his casual glance at the facile number of things that he or any of us understands about human history should yield clear apprehension of what is being done and should be done?

If one takes chess as an example, there are very limited parameters and relatively few variables, but great players are still able to think so far into the possible futures of each game that they can come up with strategies that catch their opponents by surprise. In the ‘Game of the Century’, for instance, Bobby Fischer faced world-champion Donald Byrne, and chose to sacrifice his queen. To chess imbeciles such as myself, allowing the capture of your most powerful piece would represent a mistake, but Fischer ensured that the cost of her capture was so high that the game would be his anyway. His strategy was so far beyond what other people expected (including his opponent) that it made certain individual actions seem nonsensical.

When one extends the number of variables to human history, the ability to map possible futures is surely out of our grasp—even that of Eddie Izzard. Funnily enough, this is exactly the point of one of the oldest extant discussions of the problem of evil, known as The Book of Job. In the story, Job suffers a crushing series of unjustified evils, and his friends all tell him that God is just and so it must be punishment for something that Job has done. Job protests that he is innocent. When the verdict comes, Job is proven correct, but the rebuke for all parties is that they are all passing judgement on matters about which they know nothing.

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know!” (Job 38:1-5)

There is a plan—and we know more of it post Jesus than Job did—but don’t expect that all of it should be obvious to you, me or Eddie Izzard.

It is the business of comedians to take cheap shots, I suppose, but surely (having claimed the intellectual high-ground as their own) atheism can make arguments to match. It seems to be everyone’s loss when we stop discussing and start playing to the crowd.

Structure of Genesis 12

I was recently notified that my article on the structure of Genesis 12 was published in the Scriptura journal towards the end of last year. There is an open-access online version, so you can read it here:

This is the abstract:

Genesis 12 is a crucial chapter in biblical theology, with most scholarly attention being given to the promises at the start. Structurally, however, the chapter should be viewed as a unit, and its emphasis falls on v.10. This article aims to demonstrate that the text is best viewed as a series of five speech-response pairs, with the central ‘pair’ emphatically omitting any speech. The absence of speech in v.10 is an interpretive key, identifying the theme of testing as central to this episode, and placing the promises made to Abram in their proper context: the gifts and blessings of God are ultimately less important than being in properly ordered relationship with the Giver.

It sounds a little dull, I’ll concede, but it actually fixes a number of the open questions about Genesis 12, and it is my first proper contribution to academia thus far. Huzzah. (I think it reads better than it sounds here too.)

Creation Ministries International and church division

I recently was part of a church event in which I was asked to speak about the conflict between science and the Bible, especially over the matter of creation (audio/text here). My argument, as ever, is that the big question concerns the genre of the creation stories. The biblical creation story can be read quite naturally as belonging to any of three or four genres, not all of which commit the reader to a specific view of how creation came about in space and time, and so there is no necessary conflict between the two.

The point about genre is easy enough to demonstrate, but still unsettles people (I suppose people generally prefer certainty over possibility), and sure enough, I received a letter that read as follows:

Dear Jordan,

I am really sorry that you have had unfortunate experiences in trying to defend your faith when coming up against the “scientific community”. Please receive the enclosed newsletter I have just received this very week as a gift. May your confidence grow in our God’s word & the knowledge of His sovereignty daily.

In His love,
[Illegible signature]

I was upset by the letter, because contrary to everything that I said, it implies that I disbelieve the Bible’s view on creation, rather than what I repeatedly said, which is that there are several genres into which the creation narratives can reasonably fit, and that a text can be figurative without being less true. (An example that I used was the book of Revelation, which talks of beasts rising from the sea etc.; though we take it figuratively, we do not believe it any less than the more literally historical texts in the Bible).

I was unable to discover who sent the letter, but in any event, I can’t really blame this person. Standing behind this view is one or more Creationist organisations that have made misunderstanding and vilifying dissenting Christian voices into an art-form. The enclosed newsletter to which the letter refers was produced by CMI, and it perfectly demonstrates their refusal to entertain any view that varies from their own, which in turn leads to faithful Christian people being defined as compromisers or doubters or in some other way defective.

I have scanned the document in full for you to read here, but I would like to respond to several of the points that it makes, because whatever you think about Creationism itself, an organisation that has been speaking to Christians for as long as CMI has no excuse for pretending that there is only one Christian view of Genesis 1-11. I have the highest regard for several friends and family members who hold Creationistic views, but this divisive CMI tactic is anti-gospel, and it’s about time that we all stop putting up with it.

1. Creationism denial is Creator denial

‘The crying need for the faithful proclamation of biblical creation should hardly need highlighting. Is the Church as a whole awake on this issue? The answer is a clear and categorical no! On the contrary, there is a widespread refusal, even on the part of many professed evangelical Christians, to empha­sise (or even to acknowledge) Paul’s teaching. The Bible makes clear that Creation-denial (“the things that have been made”, Romans 1:20) is tantamount to Creator-denial (“For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God”, 1:21), and that idolatry directly follows (“because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”, 1:25).’ —Philip Bell, CMI

The first thing that CMI refuses to understand is that non-Creationists are not denying creation or their Creator. This is a deeply ingrained error; so much so that I often find myself explaining to other Christians that ‘Creationist’ and ‘someone who believes that God is the Creator of all things’ are not the same thing.

Many of us non-Creationists are saying little more than that it is not the author’s intention in Genesis 1-3 to tell us how the universe was created (i.e. to describe the order of events, time period etc.), but rather, the clear purpose is theological—it lays out the biblical worldview (i.e. the place of man and woman within creation, and in relation to God). And in fact, even when Creationists talk about the theological meaning of Genesis 1-3, these are the same things they speak about. It is clearly the central purpose of the stories; the ‘how’ question is secondary in any responsible interpretation of the text (and is never given any importance elsewhere in scripture).

Us ‘professed evangelicals’ who deny that this secondary matter is within the text’s purview continue to affirm with the rest of scripture that God was the active agent in the creation of the world, no matter what mechanism was used to bring it about.

2. Creationism is essential to the gospel

‘The hope of the Gospel is the only answer to this sorry state of affairs. The message “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15) is the Good News indeed… Without an understanding of the reliability and relevance of biblical creation, people will continue to languish in their ignorance, deceived and deceiving each other (2 Timothy 3:13)… By proclaiming Creation in a scientific age we expose the folly of worldly thinking, while simultaneously pointing people to the Creator-and-Saviour of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ…

‘We proclaim Creation, not only because it is true, but because effective evangelism requires it. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is founded on an historical Adam and Eve, the serpent tempter, the taking of the forbidden fruit, and the promise of the Victor over Satan (Genesis 3:15). History’s simple message—all are sinners; sin’s penalty is death, spiritual and physical; Christ came to deliver us from sin’s penalty and power, and from the sting and dominion of death—is founded on historical events recorded in Genesis.’ —Philip Bell, CMI

One could quibble with several details in these quotes—not least the idea that they ‘expose the folly of worldly thinking’, because while the gospel certainly exposes human sin and rebellion, Creationism tends to devolve into squabbles about the interpretation of cherry-picked scientific evidence.

The main issue, however, is that CMI thinks the proclamation of Creationism—not biblical creation—is essential to evangelism. The reason is again that they assume that there is no difference between the theology of Creation (which all evangelical Christians believe—see point 1) and their literal-historical hermeneutic that leads to creation science. So anyone who leaves room for non-literal elements in the text must disbelieve biblical creation.

I made a semi-serious quiz for my narrative-exegesis class that can help to illustrate the basic error that CMI makes here. The quiz takes the form of true/false questions such as:

History is:     T/F
Metaphor is:     T/F

These questions are obviously foolish; history and metaphor in general are neither true nor false—they are descriptions of reality that may be accurate or inaccurate. Our school textbooks in Apartheid South Africa taught skewed history that served our white racist ideology (it was a false explanation of real events); conversely, Jesus taught in parables, which are figurative, but Christians would argue are true descriptions of reality.

Nevertheless, I am proud of my T/F quiz, because it exposes the kind of bias that many of us carry, and which CMI smuggles into their argument about Creationism and the gospel: something must be fully history to be true; figurative language would mean it didn’t happen (metaphor is false).

What CMI refuses to hear is that evangelical non-Creationists also believe those key gospel ideas that are listed in the article: that God is Creator, that humankind fell into sin and are subject to death, and that Christ died and rose again to reunite us to God. The gospel depends on all of that being true. It does not depend on all of Genesis 1-11 being literally historical. Whether God made the world in 6 days or 6 billion years, it doesn’t change the truth that God is the Creator. The 6 days could be representative of any number of things (order, preparedness, 6 ages etc.) without changing the basic truth on which the gospel depends.

Ironically, the thing that finally made me not-a-Creationist was the realisation that Creationism does not help to proclaim the gospel. On the contrary, it makes a battleground out of the scientific mechanism by which God created—something that doesn’t actually matter all that much. Rather than teaching the gospel, it usually gets lost in trying to cure people of evolution, a distraction that offers no guarantees of also curing their rebellion against God.

3. Jesus was a Creationist

‘The Bible clearly teaches the creation of all things in six days a few thousand years ago (Genesis 1–2); the intrusion of sin and the Curse, blighting the originally perfect universe physically and morally (Genesis 3); the geographically global, devastating Flood (Genesis 6–9); and the historicity of Babel, with the confusion of human language (Genesis 10–11). Furthermore, Jesus and all the New Testament writers affirmed this view of Genesis 1–11.’ —Philip Bell, CMI

The view that Jesus and the apostles were Creationists makes regular appearances in Creationist arguments, but again it makes basic errors.

Firstly, it assumes that the only true presentations of history are literal presentations. What the NT says about Genesis 1-3 certainly depends on it being true history. However it is simplistic and mistaken to think that this requires it to be literal history. There are several ways of presenting history that are not literal. For example, the Bible often stylises history in poetic forms, and the book of Revelation presents the future history of the church age in a highly symbolic way, and yet we take it as true though it is not literal.

For example, Judges 5 says that the Lord marched down from Edom, and that the stars fought for Israel. This is not literal but it is true. And the NT could comfortably look back on that war and affirm that the stars contended against Canaan without implying that actual stars came and fought. The form of the original can be repeated without implying anything about its literalness or otherwise. In the same way, the NT can repeat elements of the creation narratives without implying anything about the literalness or figurativeness of the original.

The genre of Genesis 1-3 is the big question. It could be literal history, but it could be poetic, or like the prophetic literature, or a special genre used for worldview stories. In any of the latter three, whatever really happened in creation would be stylised in order to clearly communicate the significance of what happened, rather than the historical detail of it. It would no longer be the Creationist’s brand of literal history, though it would remain true. And crucially, none of these genres would necessitate any change to the way in which the NT refers to it. Jesus can still affirm the form of the original and its significance without implying anything about how literally it should be taken.

The second problem with the CMI argument is again the confusion of biblical creation and Creationism. The things in the creation story that the New Testament affirms are relatively few. The NT interest in creation overlaps with the Creationist interest in creation in a handful of small ways. To say on this basis that the NT teaches 6-day young-earth Creationism is presumptuous to say the least.

Take for example the one place in the NT in which I can find reference to the seven days—Hebrews 4:

For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,
“As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”
although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.”

Clearly the issue is the theology of rest not the mechanism of creation. This does not teach young-earth Creationism; it merely refers to the significance of the creation story, using the terms in which that story has been communicated in the canon. It would make no difference to Hebrews 4 if God finished founding the world in six minutes or six trillion light years, as long as that process reached a state of rest. So this passage fits into the creationist view, but it fits just as comfortably into mine.

Perhaps the more irksome issue in CMI’s line of argument here is the degree of arrogance that underlies it. Firstly, the starting line is that the Bible ‘clearly teaches’ young-earth Creationism. This might seem like an innocent statement, but consider that this is being written by the CEO of CMI in Europe. This is a person who is surely well aware of old-earth Creationists and evangelicals of various other convictions whose singular point is that the teaching of the Bible depends on the intended meaning of the text, not just on what it says on the surface. It is far from clear that the science of creation plays any role at all in the teaching of Genesis. To say that Creationism is clearly taught is incredibly disingenuous and represents a breath-taking dismissal of thousands of faithful Christians who study the Bible with complete devotion and yet have arrived at a different conclusion on a secondary matter.

Secondly, the argument he is making is not exegetical; he is not explaining how these texts must be understood in a Creationist way. He is merely citing NT references to Genesis 1-11 as though Christians such as me have either never read the NT or have had to tear those pages out of our Bibles so that we can hang onto our supposedly warped views of creation. To claim NT citations as evidence of Creationism is wrong. To merely point them out as though I couldn’t possibly have read that far in my Bible without having become a Creationist is insulting.

4. Non-Creationistic views dishonour God

‘Last, but not least, God is glorified when we uphold the Word of God and proclaim its teaching on Creation and the Creator. His name is honoured. The same cannot be said for teaching which undermines the same even if by well-meaning Christians. Christians seeking to live godly lives in this ungodly world should be at the forefront in repairing and restoring the breaches in the foundations and walls of Christendom (Isaiah 58:12). We need to hold fast to our confession of faith in Christ (Hebrews 10:23), making every effort to contend for the faith handed down to us by previous generations of faithful believers (Jude 3). Proclaiming Creation in a scientific age should be a staple part of every Christian’s engagement in the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:11–12).’ —Philip Bell, CMI

This final quote would be perfectly fine if it were not that we have already been made aware that CMI operates on different definitions of the gospel and what it means to uphold the Word of God. This quote sums up nicely the problem that organisations such as CMI perpetuate in the Christian world. There is nothing unusual in asking questions about the genre of a biblical text, nor in revising interpretation on the basis of new research—this is the basic stuff of exegesis that happens continually. But for some reason, asking these basic and necessary questions of Genesis is out of bounds.

And so, CMI has taken it upon itself to publicly define anyone who does not unquestioningly apply their literalist hermeneutic as in violation of the faith, as doubters of scripture, and as dishonouring to God. It doesn’t matter to them that they’ve been told repeatedly that other evangelicals do proclaim creation and the Creator; that we agree on the central theology of Genesis 1-11; that we are passionate about the careful, faithful exegesis of scripture; and that we contend daily for the gospel of Jesus Christ. None of these things actually matter to them. What matters is their fight against secular science, and anyone who doesn’t support them in that fight is an enemy. And so they have spent the last 40 years refusing to listen, and making it their public ‘ministry’ to condemn Christians who see things differently.

I am completely in favour of Christians holding to Creationist convictions if they are persuaded by the evidence that this is the best reading. I am totally happy for scientists and researchers to try and prove divine design or to overturn the evolutionary paradigm if it is incorrect. But it is about time that we stop supporting organisations such as CMI that maintain a studied refusal to listen to other Christians and who willfully breed division and judgement on a matter that is demonstrably secondary to the faith.