evolution is too hard

Once again The Lampstand Magazine is running articles which essentially put the argument that:

  • this is very cute/complicated [delete as appropriate]
  • we can’t imagine how God could have made this evolve
  • because it is really amazing
  • therefore God used special creation

Obviously the argument depends on the irresistible logic that the creative techniques available to God are dependent on our understanding or imagination.  Not a great foundation.

Perhaps the argument works well for those who reject evolutionary CREATION out of hand, but the logic won’t go much further.


An argument from silence

Be careful with arguments from silence: sometimes they are valid.

A circle of respected elders accuse the woman and test the teacher. She has committed adultery, she was caught in the act. What do you say about that, unauthorised wannabe rabbi? We know the rules, and the scripture behind them, and the traditions through which the Bible must be read. Do you?

The powerful young man says nothing. His crowd of followers waits for him to respond to the extraordinary interruption. He writes in the earth. They insist. He challenges them to act on their beliefs, and writes again.  They leave, in order of seniority.

Again, accusers accuse. This one believes that the Creator made an unfolding world. This one has taught her children about dinosaurs. This one scoffs at the Foundation Clause – we caught him in the very act.

The young man watches: his Father has already written in the earth. Written in the stones, written in their strata, written in the coal, in the chemistry, in the snow and ice, in the stars. In every cell of your body, sister. In every moment of your heart and mind, brother.


An alternative history of Australian views on Adam

As has well been pointed out an Adam based faith is focused on the wrong man.  Jesus is the basis of salvation, Adam brings death, division and failure.  Below is a letter from the precursor of the AACE from 1987.  The letter was controversial at the time. It demonstrates a range of opinions existed on Adam’s nature in Australia (and the pioneers!).  It’s language at times seems unsoundly optimistic about our relationship with sin.  However it provides important context on the Australian Unity Agreement which brought two opinions into fellowship.  It also makes important observations about what the Unity Agreement did not address Continue reading

The necessity of Adam’s failure

How could and why would God allow Adam to fail (or creative him such a way that such failure was inevitable)?  Surely sin and death were never part of God’s creative plan!  So say some as if their musings are authoritative or the only opinions ever held within our community.  Such is “very short-sighted” according to the 1894 Christadelphian Magazine article by Sis Mary Brabyn.  R Roberts published the article under the heading “the Apparent Failure of Freewill”.  Though a convinced literal creationist she articulated that Adam’s failure set the basis for a far more effective salvation of man than Adam’s mere obedience could achieve.  For in Adam’s failure, God’s mercy and love would be demonstrated and appreciated. Continue reading

LG Sargent deplored new common understandings

In response to public discussion on whether the serpent was literal, a number of ecclesias in the UK passed motions banning those who held such views from their platforms and circulated their position to garner collective support.  Bro Sargent supported individual autonomy but deplored defining common understandings of the statement of faith and the spread/publication of such positions which he saw as dangerous to unity.  Of course LG Sargent would be condemned by the {now withdrawn} Motion 8 even though he would agree with elements of it.  His counsel below remains relevant. Continue reading

A common understanding? A strategic retreat.

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

The enigma of creation – a new book

Enigma of CreationBro Rick Bower has written a new and interesting book.  The introduction reads – “In recent years, few topics have generated more interest and prompted more debate across the broad spectrum of Christian denominations, than that of the Biblical creation texts. And in particular, the text of Genesis 1 has played a controversial role. So then, the goal of this work is only to encourage a deeper and more sensitive approach to the creation text of Genesis 1. This approach must necessarily incorporate the ancient perspectives of the original, Biblical audience, as well as the spiritual aspects of the text which are explicitly revealed to us.”

As he says in the book’s preface

“The goal of this work is not dogma. And yet the evidence is presented in such a way, so that all of it can be accounted for in any conclusions which the reader may reach. Of course, I offer my own conclusions for consideration. Ultimately, the goal of this work is only to encourage a deeper and more sensitive approach to the creation text of Genesis 1. To that end, I pray that this work strengthens your faith in God, and His Son, as much as it has mine.”

Bro Rick Bower’s work can be purchased on Lulu here