The News Beats

Brian McLaren is an infamous leader in the Emergent Church movement, which is a recent and more obnoxious outcrop of church Liberalism which spawned the Evangelical Left.  Among their many heretical takes on what the Bible teaches, they also profess that Israel is to be scorned.  McLaren is joining the cacophony of anti-Israeli voices now that he is visiting the Palestinians and has undergone an awakening from the “well-planned propaganda” he was the victim of all his life in the states.¹  This certainly brings the question of McLaren’s credibility, and even basic abilities, front and center.

Firstly, exactly how sophisticated was the campaign that kept McLaren wrongly supporting Israel, if he ever really did so, for his whole life until now (his born in 1956)?  He could not have been misled by the U.S. media all these years.  They consistently portray Israel as an evil aggressor any time they take a defensive action.   McLaren certainly was not misled by others of his liberal church collogues such as the Presbyterian Church USA.  The PCUSA claimed that Israel was erecting an obstacle to peace by building a security wall to keep out homicide bombers, and they called for financial divestment from companies doing business with Israel in order to punish it for pursuing self-preservation.

If McLaren is the self-described dimwit he claims he was for making “basic assumptions” in which he allowed his understanding to be “skewed from a lifetime of half-truths, unfair and imbalanced news…, and misinformation,”² how does he account for his sudden clarity?  If it truly takes a change in geography and first-hand observations to enable McLaren to clearly evaluate events and accounts, is the level of McLaren’s perspicuity actually worth any serious consideration whatsoever?  These are very pressing concerns because of other claims McLaren makes about himself.

McLaren claims to evaluate Christian doctrine and weigh the minds of the Apostles to prescribe new applications of scripture, based on his wisdom and insight, as he applies himself to the documents.  Astoundingly, he now admits to being unable to sort through the products of basic journalism and ferret out facts from fiction.  Obviously, his preexisting premises of being easily fooled and misled invalidate any claim he now makes to sound reasoning.  But he’s not appealing to reason.  McLaren is playing to small-minded anti-Semitism, and working for the spirit of Antichrist.

Notes:

^{1 - 2.} Mark D. Tooley, “The Anit-Israel Revelation,” FrontPage Magazine, January 27, 2010.  http://www.thenewsbeats.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=482

The book Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton is a collection of collegent digressions where the author toys with reversing positives into negatives and examining what is right side up wrong side down in a lateral thinking game.  It is an exercise of applying thesis against antithesis from an arbiter’s middle perch;  the vantage point which seems to imbue those who successfully entertain such exercises with enviable perspicuity.  This is the stuff passed around dormitories where unsuspecting sophomores have their Bohemian days.

It is sad that those rumored to have maturity in the faith would take the time to study under Chesterton, and cite him in their own works on the faith. At point is John Piper, who is pressed by admirers to be some Christian thinker of our times.  Indeed, Piper has authored several Christian books over the years.  Nevertheless, he remains so impressed by Chesterton’s prose lamenting mankind’s lack of conviction for the truth that he included it in his book Brothers We Are Not Professionals, and Piper quotes this from him:

What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.  Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition.  Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be.  A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth.¹

This, for all its purported value in assertiveness training for truth bearers , is but nothing more than a self-affirmation that Chesterton was a living example of his own complaint.  It will turn out well for all those who were enamored with Chesterton, for all his sophistry, and who later discover that he was a fool; he would as soon doubt the word of God as toy with the implications of doing so.

On page 30 of Orthodoxy, Chesterton caves under the scientific evidence available to him in 1908, and joins the throngs of Darwinists happy to call God a liar:

If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for orthodoxy; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly , especially if , like the Christian God, he were outside time.²

Appealing to the fact that God can do things the way He chooses to argue in favor of theistic evolution is asinine.  Where the Bible is silent, good men may speculate, but to contradict it where it has spoken is to wield the sting of poison.  On the subject, thus saith the Lord:  “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen 2:7).

Let the writer here repeat himself from an earlier defense of the Bible where this verse was treated:

At one time, and in one instance, man was fully formed up to his nostrils before he had any life in him at all-no living cells struggling for survival, no grotesque mutating and mindless devouring as protoplasm. God completely formed him out to the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life, and by miraculous means man became a living soul; not an intermediate soul, not half a soul, but a living human soul in its entirety starting life in the image of God.³

What then of these Christian writers who fawn over purveyors of heresy?  Is it a case of much learning making them mad?  Festus leveled that charge against the Apostle Paul in an attempt to discredit him and the gospel (Acts 26:24).  Of course it was not true, but the charge itself is not without meat.

We should have discussions about what’s important, but not forget the rule and caution of discussion.  The more that we dialogue, the further away from the point we get.  This is why conclusions are necessary in writing, and, more importantly, why we who are in the faith must strive to finish well.  The Lord does not lie, though his ways are past finding out; God made man out of the dust of the ground during one day, he raised another from the dead in only three.  Let the redeemed of the Lord sing: “Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints” (Rev 15:3).  We must contend for the faith.  Let us not write so much about something that we remove ourselves from the something we’re supposed to be about.  Nor let us knowingly endorse those in our citations who deceptively plant seeds of doubt attacking the word of God.

Notes:

^1. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (1908): quoted in John Piper, Brothers We Are Not Professionals (B&H Publishing, 2002), 162.

^2. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (Dodd and Mead, 1908; New York: First Image, 1936), citation to the First Image edition. 

^3. David Dansker, “Immediate Man,” TheNewsBeats.com/TheBibleBeats.com, February 16, 2008. http://www.thenewsbeats.com/bible/?p=30

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. (1Ki 18:21)

In the search for intermediate life forms to support the theory of evolution none have been discovered. New developments out of the science community, however, reveal that some scientists appear poised to identify an intermediate life form by creating it themselves. In what has become a long and protracted campaign to do just that, a new effort by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine (NAS/IMO) has resulted in a 70-page book titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. In the text they attempt to bolster the theory of evolution, and persuade religious people that they sacrifice nothing in joining their ranks. The effort is aimed not only at convincing religious people that science and religion are compatible, but that religious people can also embrace the theory of evolution without contradicting the biblical account of creation. The evidence already suggests similar efforts on their part have met with significant success, and that there is, in fact, a means to classify an emerging intermediate life form. To treat this new, emerging species, religious people will hereafter be referred to in this piece as religious-man.

According to NAS/IMO, their book “shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith.”¹ The catch for this compatibility is that religious-man needs to make a few adjustments, or concessions, in the way they interpret the Bible. The reward to be gained from the science community is the vaulted mantle of co-existence. The compromise to be granted by the religious-man is: everything.

Naturalists, those who put their faith in the theory of evolution for the genesis of life, flatly reject God’s explanation for the creation of mankind, and that does not mean that they co-exist as on equal planes with respective merit. It means that, between the two of them, at best, one of them is wrong, and at worst one of them is a liar. Because God is not a liar, the task of assigning error and uncovering deceit is made easier. While Naturalists in general are only wrong when they put their faith in spontaneous generation of life by some chance environmental conditions and unintelligent forces that, through a blind natural selection process, eventually produced mankind, the scientists at NAS/IMO are liars for at least false representation. They are representing religion as one of the two methods of human understanding that are of equal value. This, they do not genuinely mean.

The reality is that religious-man is held to be inferior to the naturalist, or scientific-man, and the actual offer being extended by the latter is for the former to submit to the authority of science. Practically, they are to submissively enter the box naturalists have prepared for them so that they may be placed on a shelf and marked as exhibits of intermediate life forms; not fully evolved to the extent that the naturalists are (representing no small victory in that it would be the first intermediate life form yet produced for their theory). Then, the naturalists will accept religious-man as their ignorant wards, and make all the pertinent decisions on their behalf, and at their expense.

Honest members of the evolutionary-faithful do not dispute this. Except for the way a few of these points are herein stated in so unsavory a fashion, this is what, by the mechanics of their theory, they’ve come to believe. It is only when the high priests of science go trolling for religious converts, and more advantageous footing, are the terms of surrender euphemistically referred to as co-existence. They continue to invest in this strategy because its tactics, exemplified in this new book, continue to pay huge dividends.

There are growing numbers of religious-man who have embraced the theory of evolution as an explanation for the biblical account of creation. Naturalists have approvingly thumbed the starched lapels of their lab coats at the obsequious fawning of converts who bring forth such offerings to their altar of faith as Theistic Evolution.

The methods approved by the scientists at NAS/IOM which produce these sorts of heresies were put on record by Alan Leshner, CEO of American Association for the Advancement of Science, in an interview on the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, where he said:

Over and over, religions that see the Bible as an allegory, as a description of an overall process that isn’t tied to literal day by day, those religions seem to understand better how science can co-exist with a religious belief or even a biblical belief. It’s the literalist point that has tremendous problems.²

Notice what is advanced to tender this co-existence: a detailed list of the demands for surrender that are at issue; and the scientists at NAS/IMO and AAAS might be acknowledged for their honesty in that, but it is made more from the strength of their disdain than their cool resolve for objectivity.³

Certainly, the naturalists will accept, on limited terms, any who will recant that the Bible is the literal word of God. Surely, they will welcome, to a certain extent, those who will confess the Bible is nothing more than an allegory; a feeble attempt of primitive men to explain things that only scientists can be trusted to divulge, that only naturalists have evolved enough wisdom to understand, that only the result of blind chance and unintelligent forces could comprehend. Tremendous problems indeed.

Contrary to what NAS/IMO claim, this is by any definition conflict. Opposed are two narratives for the explanation of life and its purpose. At odds are two distinct groups of people; those who have a faith grounded in a theory, and those who have a faith grounded in theology, those who deny the existence of God,⁴ and those who take him at His word. Literally.

There is, however, a growing middle; an intermediate life form of religious-man, not fully Bible-believing, not fully naturalist. This foray into the realm of creationism by the NAS/IMO that includes overtures to this religious-man is not expected to topple Bible-believing men. That would be too much for them to hope for. On that score, they would gladly settle for intimidation. This is a continued effort, in part, to create more of these useful intermediates. By another part, the campaign is designed to mollify the already converted religious-man. It is a calculated effort to sooth him so he will pay no attention to rising chorus of challenge to the exclusivity of one failed theory barring all other discussions on the subject of origins; to the extent that naturalists will not even discuss the scientific evidence that disproves the theory of evolution, or confront the fraudulent portrayal of supporting fabrications still published in school textbooks.

This new book from NAS/IMO exemplifies a polished and well funded campaign being run against the Bible. In its face, it is hoped that some Bible-believing men might pause, and religious-man ought to be kept quiet while his children are stolen away from him and turned unto fables. What needs to be reiterated by Bible-believing man, as he presses the play, and learned by religious-man, is, again, there are no intermediate life forms. There are none to support the theory of evolution, and none to support an intermediate state of salvation. Nothing can save religious-man but complete faith in God, as is revealed in the Bible, and the same is true for naturalists. Literally.

Notes:

^1. Institute of Medicine, Reports, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” January 3, 2008 (emphasis added).

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/28312/50460.aspx

^2. Katherine T. Phan, “Pro-Evolution Book Says Science and God Compatible,” Christian Post, January 09, 2008 (emphasis added).

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080109/30782

_Pro-Evolution_Book_Says_Science_and_God_Compatible.htm

^3. The radio interview may be heard WAMU 88.5 FM. I do not imply that there was any choler in Leshner’s voice. He was interviewed by Diane Rehm on WAMU 88.5FM, which is listener supported public radio station. I am indebted to Katherine T. Phan of The Christian Post for her reporting (see n. 2) that alerted me to this interview and made it possible for me to hear it.

^4.. If His claims are invalid, He fails the test for the definition of “God”.

Dennis Rainey, of Family Life Today, was a speaker at Saddleback’s Global Summit on Aids where pro-abortionist Senator Barack Obama also spoke and caused outrage among many on looking Christians. In his report on the summit, Rainey defended the appropriateness of Obama’s addressing the church audience on grounds that he didn’t speak from the pulpit, or about abortion, but he spoke about AIDS. Nevertheless, Rick Warren shared the platform with him, endorsing and giving him encouragement. How far this encouragement will go towards emboldening Obama to hold fast to his position on murdering babies, seeing that large Christian audiences will welcome him with open arms, we do not know. We also don’t know how many extra murders will be attributed to this surge forward in his conceits that Obama received from Saddleback. We do know that sucking the brains out of babies and collapsing their skulls is murder, and that there will always be those who “not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (from Rom 1:32). It doesn’t bother Rainey. “I do not have a problem,” Rainey reports, “that Senator Obama spoke at the conference.”1 That’s because Rainey is willing to trade all those innocent lives for a part in Warren’s new ‘open mic’ evangelism of letting the unsaved preach their social gospel to the church. “If Obama isn’t a believer,” Rainey reasons, “what better place to be … perhaps bridges will be built to him that will reach him for Christ.”2 That “perhaps” is about as thin as water, and the innocent blood will be running a lot thicker to float it.