Why continue to run this blog? It has connected us with new friends but it has also garnered plenty of rebuke and opprobrium from platforms and magazine around the community. Our purpose in starting this blog was twofold. Firstly to provide a place to engage politely on the questions of creation and secondly to demonstrate an acceptance of basic science doesn’t mean an end of faith. Aggression and a dogmatic refusal of reality doesn’t honour God’s word, it damages his children – especially the young. Continue reading
This sermon with its assertive title was given in 1922 – three years before the Scopes trial – as relevant now as ever. It speaks to the dangers of intolerance and closing the mind to reality. The sermon was republished by John D. Rockefeller at his own expense and distributed in the thousands, under the more cautious title, “The New Knowledge and the Christian Faith.” The preacher’s points about intolerance and fundamentalism (as opposed to conservatism) are worth considering, even though we disagree with many parts of his position. The whole sermon is reproduced in the interests of transparency rather than his work to fit our preferences. Continue reading
Bro Ken Drage was a member at Watford when the evolution controversy broke in the 1960s. He has written an open letter addressing evolution and some of the history from the debate which centred around Bro Lovelock. The impact of emotion and pressure from others is noteworthy – as is his observation that the 1960’s discussion were civilised though highly charged (such civility is lacking today!). Bro Ken’s letter is reproduced in full below – it should be mandatory reading, so over to Ken… Continue reading
When someone withdraws from a contest they started it tells you about the strength of their position. The draft business meeting agenda for the 2018 Australasian Conference included a motion from Salisbury (SA) and Wilston (QLD) supported by Enfield (SA) ecclesia. They were trying to achieve majority agreement on THE way to read the basis of fellowship and thereby exclude evolution creation. Despite having the many votes of the Inter Ecclesial Advisory Committee (a group of SA ecclesias), they withdrew the motion at the last minute. Why? Because many east coast ecclesias advised SA of their opposition. Rather than face public defeat, the South Australians withdrew. Will they now cease insisting their understanding is the only understanding? that they alone are right? We can only hope so – a little tolerance of different consciences is after all biblical. Continue reading
LG Sargent wrote a in support of a literal serpent (a view we share) after allowing varying viewpoints to be put. No calls for disfellowship or “common understandings” on the issue. Tolerance of exploration. LG Sargent, despite putting his conclusion, acknowledged that there are difficulties of understanding Genesis 3. He also repeats Bro Thomas’ observation that God placed evil within Adam from the beginning and that trial was part of God’s design. A worthwhile read highlighting our past ability to consider different views without splitting.
LG Sargent’s comment around a controversial article suggesting the serpent in Genesis 3 was not literal ( we think it is literal!) was bound to raise eyebrows. The conclusion of his cover note shows a maturity and tolerance of exploration absent in conservative quarters of our community today. Rather than seeking to narrow fellowship and man the barricades LG Sargent hoped the community would “…be capable of reasonable and informed judgment on Scripture interpretation”. His comments are worth a read:
Conservative leaders in our community are attempting to add to the basis of fellowship between Christadelphian congregations in Australia by adding further definitions/understandings. In attempting to define how God created, they are adding to our creeds and to scripture. Of course they frame their actions as preserving our traditional understanding. Sadly a tradition of division is also possibly going to get strengthened. They complain of Evolutionary Creation being promoted on the internet as if we want to convert you. This is fundamentally untrue. Evolutionary Creationists have no problem with traditional views on creation. Continue reading