Karl Giberson, that guy who got snookered by a photoshopped picture of a human with a tail*, informs us, “The Christian Reformed Church Still Won’t Stand Up For Science”:
The evangelical Christian Reformed Church (CRC), an evangelical denomination centered mostly in the Midwest U.S. and Canada, voted last week not to set up a committee to examine the denomination’s theological positions involving the origins of the world and of human sin. The CRC’s 2014 Synod decided that there was no need for a six-year study of the complex issues surrounding the relationship between modern science and Christian theological beliefs because its affiliated scholars—especially at its flagship institution, Calvin College—were already conducting rigorous scholarship on the issue.
Well, good for them. Such committees inevitably get dominated by people lobbying for a viewpoint, usually at odds with that of the membership. The first rule in dealing with changes we don’t really support is: Don’t set up a committee to “discuss” it.
I live in Ottawa. How would I feel if I found out that Canada’s Parliament was setting up a committee to “discuss” whether Canada should implement sharia law? Well, I’d say first off that I have no idea why that is even up for discussion. People here are quite happy with English Common Law. So demonstrate good faith by disbanding the committee immediately. From Giberson:
Religious traditions expect the faculty at their colleges and universities to keep them informed about the advance of knowledge—but then they fire them when they don’t like the results. Calvin College drove away Howard Van Til because conservative elements in the CRC did not want to make peace with evolution and the Big Bang. Calvin fired John Schneider and muzzled Dan Harlow because these same elements don’t want to deal with the reality that Adam and Eve were not historical figures and there was no “fall.” And this pattern is repeated again and again at evangelical colleges and universities.
Schneider and many of his fellow evangelical scholars are convinced that Christianity can survive the loss of Adam and Eve. What is not so clear is whether evangelical Christianity can survive the loss of so many of its scholars.
It’s not clear that Van Til, in his later years, was in any sense an evangelical, which probably had something to do with his getting edged out.
And get this: “these same elements don’t want to deal with the reality that Adam and Eve were not historical figures and there was no ‘fall.’” So it’s not a subject of discussion, it’s a “reality”? I can see why these people made themselves unwelcome too.
Bluntly, it would be hard to make sense of Paul’s argument for the Christian faith, apart from the fall of man. “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Believe it, don’t believe it—it’s pretty straightforward.
But I digress. The new Darwinian Christianity will be an affair of witch Sabbats, peace pipes, and rainbow balloons, I expect.
– O’Leary for News
See also: An old painting reminds me of what is at stake in the Adam and Eve wars
* Sure, it could happen to anyone, but don’t you have to be just a wee bit gullible first?
Follow UD News at Twitter!