My Retraction re Pastor Fisk's Retraction

Dear readers,
It has come to my attention that Reverend Jonathan Fisk, whom I referenced in a previous blog titled, "The Forgiveness of Sins is Not a Club to Be Wielded," has withdrawn the video that prompted me to write that article.  This was the right thing for him to do.  And I, for my part, ought to have gone directly to him first of all in the first place.  I want to publically announce the wise decision he made to apologize on the air for the earlier production.

Dr. (Richard) Dawkins, Just One Question!

“Ever since the creation His invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.  So they are without excuse.”  (Romans 1:20)

A copy of this posting has been sent to the Richard Dawkins Foundation

“Dr. Dawkins, time and time again, both across the airwaves and in print, you have defined faith as belief in absence of evidence.  Just this past week I heard you state very closely to the effect that “religious faith is the denial of evidence.”  Now I consider your attempted definition of faith to be its own example of belief without evidence for the simple reason that your assertions on faith can easily be demonstrated to be false.  Be that as it may, my single question to you, in the form of a request, is, by your own “scientific” criteria would you please provide us with a scientific accounting of the beginning  and existence of the universe in light of the accumulated insights of Big Bang cosmology?  Since the retracing of the history of the expansion of the universe points astronomers back to an absolute beginning of the universe out of nothing, the Big Bang cannot scientifically be employed as a potential cause of that beginning.  It is rather the effect of a completely different (transcendent?) cause.  Einstein’s repeatedly and rigorously tested discovery, his General Theory of Relativity, points to the reality that all of matter, energy, space, and time came to existence out of this “'zero-volume' singularity” (Stephen Hawking).  So neither matter nor energy as entities, nor space as a spatial arena, nor time to provide the possibility of duration, were yet in existence so as to provide even a potential scientific cause for the existence of the universe.  I repeat then, what scientific answer do you propose as an explanation for the beginning of the cosmos that you can claim to be superior to the Christian belief that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”?       

We Should Not Arrive at Conclusions Part II

I had requested a serious exegetical critique of my paper so that I might either correct or clarify my line of argument.  I am a sincere seeker of the truth who is prepared to walk away from stated positions that are demonstrated to be incorrect.  I was not seeking approval.  Yet I was expecting a higher level of engagement with him the professor than I received.  Since I had laid my cards on the table at the outset, thereby giving him an opportunity to freely challenge my position, I was anticipating a serious yet eager challenge from him.  So I was surprised and disappointed that he chose to bemoan the fact that I had already taken my stance.  The offering of successful counter-arguments, should he have chosen to provide them, would seem to me to have provided him an opportunity to correct me.  Instead, he complained about an apparent stubbornness on my part.

In light of the total absence of a direct challenge to my specific arguments that point favorably to the day-age position on the creation days of Genesis, I am quite frankly surprised at the certitude with which he holds his position.  The specific set of arguments from the original Hebrew text of the Bible that ground my position will be laid out in my next posting.  What I find most surprising of all at this point is in the opening statement in the body of his letter, namely, “I have never made a special effort to hunt around to see whether anyone has attempted to address this issue in detail. I am unaware of any serious academic commentary on Genesis that treats the question at all for the simple reason that neither those who hold to a traditional view of Genesis 1 or those who hold to a liberal view of Genesis 1 regard this as a serious question [sic].”

The answer to the question of whether there are serious Hebrew scholars who embrace the day-age position on the days of Genesis cannot be legitimately determined by a prejudice that is founded on will-full ignorance.  The Lutheran Church---Missouri Synod has historically taken a decidedly strong young-earth position on creation.  For this reason it is academically inexcusable for him to boast, “I have never made a special effort to hunt around to see whether anyone has attempted to address this issue in detail.”   Neither his decision in advance that this is not a “serious question,” nor  his candid admission that he is “unaware” of serious scholars who embrace the day-age view, can, in truth, be made to harmonize as serious academic inquiry.  The only legitimate way to arrive at the truth of the matter is to take the trouble to investigate every side of each individual argument one-by-one, which is exactly what my paper, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look” endeavors to do.

Worse still for the professor, his assertion of a lack of scholarship supporting the day-age position is refuted on the very first page of my paper where I include a roster of top flight Biblical scholars (adhering to the “inerrant Scripture” standard) who disagree with him.  He already had my paper in front of him as of the time of our correspondence.  That, despite his protest that he had already read my paper, he dismissed my listing of such as though it did not appear, renders his verdict that there is no serious scholarship supporting me, illegitimate.

It is not by weight of academic degrees that academic questions are answered, but by the serious level of scholastic investigation that is determined to follow the evidence wherever it actually leads.

We Should Not Arrive at Conclusions by Degree Alone

“[They examined] the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”—Acts 17:11

 

Since my interpretation of the creation days in the first chapters of Genesis is a minority view in my denomination, I have obligated myself to the submission of my paper, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look,” in order that it might receive rigorous critique.  It is my personal standard to avoid all errors and all misrepresentations in my papers, and to quickly correct them wherever discovered.  To fulfill this goal I went to the “experts” (approximately ten) in the specific fields of study that my paper addresses in order to receive their scholarly assessment.  Included on this list were two professors of Old Testament, the first of which freely and effectively employs the Hebrew text to emphasize and clarify his points.  I was astonished to receive his reply that he was not comfortable with addressing the Genesis creation account (even though I have encountered his comments on this area in public documents).  He instead deferred me to the “’Answers in Genesis’ man” on the same faculty who was also department head.

Having already received my paper for examination, what follows is a significant portion of his reply:

You asked whether I could point you to “a sustained exegetical study of Genesis 1 that argues successfully for the 24-hour day position.” Frankly, since you are already committed to the view that the word 'day' in Genesis 1 is used by the author to represent some long period of time, I doubt whether any treatment of the question could possibly "argue successfully" for the view that you have already rejected. In any case, I have never made a special effort to hunt around to see whether anyone has attempted to address this issue in detail. I am unaware of any serious academic commentary on Genesis that treats the question at all for the simple reason that neither those who hold to a traditional view of Genesis 1 or those who hold to a liberal view of Genesis 1 regard this as a serious question. Both liberals and traditional conservatives know quite well that the Hebrew word 'yom' is used most of the time in Genesis 1 to refer to what we might call a 'common day'. Liberals, of course, acknowledge that while 'yom' is used in Genesis 1 to refer to a common day, the entire account is 'mythological' and therefore by definition non-historical. What you describe as the 'day-age position' is a view promoted by those who desire to find some middle ground between traditional conservatism and liberalism, and do so in such a way that they can harmonize Genesis 1 to views of contemporary science about the origins of the material world. As the liberal commentator John Skinner has noted, “It is recognized by all recent harmonists that the definition of ‘day’ as ‘geological period’ is essential to their theory: it is exegetically indefensible (John Skinner, Genesis (ICC 1930), 5n.)”. In this Skinner is right. Nothing in Genesis 1 suggests that most of the account of the creation of the material world in seven yoms should be taken to imply seven 'ages' or long periods of time, and everything in the text militates against it.

There are a handful of challenges I might offer to his letter.  But it is most important here to highlight his “appeal to authority” for the express purpose of stifling a thorough investigation of the actual facts of the Hebrew text in Genesis.

To be continued…

The Forgiveness of Sins is Not... Part II

            According to Fisk’s blog, the Good News of the forgiveness of sins was not a part of the apologist’s message.  He may or he may not be correct in the impression his video conveys on this matter.  Yet this too is not my point.  Whenever Christians do herald this forgiveness we are ourselves individually confessing that this is the one message that stands between us and the judgment that we all would otherwise face.  Having the “knowledge” of the forgiveness of sins does not make the Christian superior to others.  It is instead a reminder that every human being is in the same boat before the same God who loves us in spite of our sin and encourages us to share with others that very news.  When some are confused about the forgiveness of sins, it is our privilege to announcement it with humility and joy.

The message of the forgiveness of sins is not a club with which to clobber others who are down, including fellow Christians.  Neither is it about a club in the sense of Christians circling the wagons in self-congratulations over some achievement of doctrinal purity.  Shall we clarify the good news?  Yes!  But let us do so in kindness and humility for the glory of God who sent His son for us all.

Your servant pastor, Gary         

The forgiveness of Sins is Not a Club to be Wielded

“If one is overtaken in any trespass, you… should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” (Galatians 6:1)

[I just wrote this as a newsletter article for my congregation]

One of my favorite classes of all time was “Constructive Theology” during my senior year at seminary.   Twenty students sat around a large table, each one spending an entire class hour presenting our own eight page tightly-argued paper which laid out our theological position, addressing the assigned major biblical themes (God, Christ, the atonement, the Bible, etc).  Then the other students sitting around the table were given the opportunity to either seek clarification about a statement, or actually challenge the presenter on specific points.  At Luther seminary there was a lot of diversity of opinion (from “conservative” to “liberal”) about these matters.  Discussion was often vigorous.   After our presentation, we each met with our professor who assigned us further research and reading for the purpose of revising and strengthening our initial paper.  I wondered at the time why my wonderful professor was not appreciated by the rest of the faculty.  To this day I regard his contribution to my life then as foundational.  However, he did not receive tenure (a permanent position) at that school, and for years I wondered what became of him…until the day I stumbled onto him as he spoke over the radio.  He was taking one side of a radio “debate” on the resurrection of Christ (I can’t remember the particulars), which I sadly turned off well before the engagement concluded.  I could not listen because he was belittling his opponent.  That encounter horrified and embarrassed me, and I resolved that I would not be like him and would never engage with people in such a disgusting manner.

From time to time you hear me speak, both from the pulpit and in class, of the importance of being equipped as Christians to engage with our culture in the truth of the Gospel.  You are also aware of my involvement in two public debates.  I want you to understand that I am not suggesting that every Christian become a public debater (being a debater, properly understood, is not a bad thing).  Far from it.  What I seek instead is that Christians become so comfortable in what we know and why, that being “on attack mode” never enters our thinking.  We are invited to love people into the kingdom of God, not belittle or argue them in.  Yet it is also true that the more we know (and why we believe) the more comfortable we become around people who think different than we do.  And unless we imagine (wrongly) that we must trumpet our knowledge, the more comfortable others become around us.

The existence of another blog than my own was just recently brought to my attention.  The address is  http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/2013/09/13/an-intellectual-tragedy-of-moralistic-proportions/.   It concerns a famous apologist whose daughter (perhaps in her early 20’s) announced that she had now become an atheist.  The blogger, Jonathan Fisk (a fellow LCMS pastor), highlighted key “transgressions” (on the part of the apologist) which he alleges contributed to the journey of the daughter into her atheism.  For the record I largely share the list of objections that Fisk listed on his blog.  But I sharply disagree with what I heard of the father’s theology and training tactics in a number of areas.  But at the same time I am also disgusted at the lack of humility and compassion on the part of the LCMS pastor.  The rejection by a daughter, of the values of a parent, may or may not be warranted depending on the circumstances.  For the record I do not agree that the specific disagreements of the daughter warranted her embracing of atheism.  But this is not my point.  Whenever such rifts happen there will surely be a heavy dose of pain and embarrassment for one or both parties.  So I ask, is the exposure of sin and its consequences to be our final word, and in such a public manner?

To be continued...

Challenging Ball State University Professor on Academic Freedom

Dear President Dr. Jo Ann Gora,

President of Ball State University

The case for the naturalistic interpretation of the origin of life is weakened, not strengthened, by your attempt to censor that body of evidence which purports to favor Intelligent Design (specifically with respect to physics professor Dr. Eric Hedin’s discussion of the relevant issues in his class room).  The clash of ideas ought to be the hallmark of academic inquiry.  Tragically, by your promotion of the opposite, higher education is is made into a mockery.  What are you afraid of?  There is not the slightest intellectual justification for suppressing the free exchange of ideas.  Truth instead is laid bare in the face of exposure to serious public challenge.  In the end the truth will be exposed regarding the status of the ID interpretation of the scientific facts. The simple matter is that scientific naturalism is in exactly the same boat.  You are not advancing the outcome of the inquiry at hand, but to the contrary hindering it.  It is just as intellectually absurd for “academics” to censor ID as it is for a forensic doctor to decide, in advance of the investigation of a dead body lying at the end of an alley with two small holes in the skull and two bullet cases on the ground, that only natural causes will be considered.

The common charge that ID contradicts science is utterly false.  Since science is defined as the study of material operations within material systems, ID’s appeal to an Intelligence that (who) transcends such systems involves no violation of scientific rules for the reason that, by definition, it has nothing whatever to do with operations science.  As neo-Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould (obviously no sympathizer of ID) concedes, “Science simply cannot adjudicate (by its legitimate methods) the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature.” (“Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge.” Scientific American. (July 1992)).

Sincerely,

Rev. Gary Jensen, Zion Lutheran Church

Snohomish, Washington 98290