The Mark Driscoll Affair. Part II

Church Member? Your fired! - unless you follow me!

The December Christianity magazine article carried an article about domineering church leader Mark Driscoll and his fall from grace. The following quote taken from the article holds lessons for evangelical Christians. After Driscoll put one of his pastor's in "the wood chipper" (as Driscoll nicely put it; i.e. gave the pastor the sack and threatened to destroy his career), Driscoll seemed to become intoxicated by power. As Christianity tells us:

It was at this point that Driscoll cancelled all church membership and instructed  the congregation to reapply, simultaneously forcing them to accept his newly proposed bylaws. However, while the majority did not  reapply, new members continued  to flock to the church plugging the many gaps.

This quote is evidence of how these authoritarian leaders are made and supported by gullible followers: Having failed to pull the wool over the eyes of the church members who had at last got wise, Driscoll attempted to "refresh" the membership by gathering to himself only those who would follow him. It seems from the above quote that initially Driscoll found enough new members ignorant of the background to keep his church going for a while. But he couldn't fool all of the people all of the time, for it seems that even these new fresh faced members got wise to him, eventually causing the demise of Driscoll and the Mars Hill fellowship in its original form. The sad fact is it looks as though Driscoll had to be pushed rather than him voluntarily jumping. However, there is some consolation in the fact that ultimately it was by congregational power that Driscoll got his eventual comeuppance. But only then did repentance set in.

Driscoll's strategy by which he attempted to establish absolute control is not original; it's happened before in Restorationist churches and is probably a known, perhaps even a once recommended technique of its leadership: I once heard of a Restorationist leader in the UK who did something very similar: He declared all membership null void during a church meeting and he said that only those who wish to support him need follow him into the next room where he would effectively "reboot" the church with a loyal membership. This little episode, taken together with the Driscoll affair, is evidence of the unhealthy power ethos in Restorationist circles.

During my early 1980s research of Restorationism I also had contact with one of their house group leaders, a certain Steve Lock. Steve said during his sermon at a Restorationist service I attended that one of the purposes of house groups was to give people a boot up the backside - another indication of the kind of abrasive heavy shepherding ethos that was abroad among restorationists. So what has changed? By leaning on his members Driscoll is in many ways simply reflecting his leadership culture.

As said in Part I, we can't put all the blame at Driscoll's door because much traces back to Restorationist attitudes and the epistemic arrogance of their fundamentalism. People like Terry Virgo are in part responsible for this travesty of Christian leadership and their patriarchal maturity should be called into question; Driscoll was never going to learn the art of responsible accountable leadership from the likes of them, especially as the doctrine of the restoration of Apostolic authority was central to their teaching. In fact Driscoll implicitly used this doctrine to justify his putting one of his pastors in the "wood chipper".  For this reason the Christianity article could not offer worse advice than the following:

...if there are lessons to be learned  from the rise of Mark Driscoll (and Mars Hill church) perhaps it is the importance of older and wiser mentors for young church leaders.

No. Given the patriarchal outlook of Restorationist leaders one may as well throw more fuel onto Driscoll's fire if one is to follow that advice. In the end it was the church membership that did their job, voted with their feet and effectively disciplined Driscoll. And that's the way it should be. It's a lesson about where ultimate church power lies; Viz: with an educated and economically and socially empowered church membership who make or break leadership. The writer of the  Christianity article needs to learn that lesson, rather than be besotted with "maturity" and patriarchy. But then does it really matter if the article writer doesn't learn the lesson? Because the hard (and profane) fact is that unless thoroughly deluded church members can simply vote with their feet and withdraw their economic support. That's where the real church power lies, and the Driscoll's of this world can grimace and point as much as they like; they can't take that power away.

For Part I see:

http://www.viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-mark-driscoll-affair.html

29/07/21:  See here

The Mark Driscoll Affair

Many fundagelicals have criticized fallen fellow fundagelical Mark Driscoll. In a fundamentalist vs. fundamentalist match it’s often a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object! However, Driscoll's appears to have repented; but that is worth tuppence to suspicious fundies unless it equates to Driscoll eating out of their doctrinal hand!

The December edition of Premier Christianity magazine carries a news article on mega church leader Mark Driscoll. Actually that should be “ex mega church leader” because Driscoll resigned in October of this year due to a variety of scandals about the style of his leadership, (See for example this wiki page). According to Christianity Driscoll has said that “I have confessed to past pride, anger and a domineering spirit”, which perhaps genuinely sums up where Driscoll personally went wrong;  spiritual arrogance may also be a fitting description at this juncture. However, I am of the opinion that the real problems can be traced further back than Driscoll’s domineering and abrasive personality, right back to “fundagelical” culture and ethos itself.

For a start I find fault with the fundagelical tendency to comb the Bible looking for definitive statements that are considered to be literally God’s (last) Word on belief and practice. This is just a repeat of my usual complaint about the epistemic method and epistemic arrogance of both fundamentalists and some (more moderate) evangelicals who operate with a similar epistemic. In particular, in the Driscoll case Christianity magazine says that “...some welcomed [Driscoll's] return to teaching about submission and authority” (No doubt supported by Biblical chapter and verse “proof texts”!). Driscoll appears to have been part of the restoration movement that claimed to have “restored” New Testament teaching on the “covering authority of leaders”. In the UK this version of Restorationism was championed in the 1970s by fundagelical leaders like Arthur Wallis, Brynn Jones and Terry Virgo (and I believe it still is championed by Virgo who is alive today).

Needless to say that for every fundagelical there is an anti-fundagelical who, although equally as diligent in “following Biblical teaching”, will shout things like heresy!, false teacher! and perhaps even worse at fellow fundagelicals who beg to differ. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the first instance with Driscoll: As Christianity says “...while some welcomed a return to teaching about submission and authority others condemned Driscoll as a false teacher”; notice that as per the usual fundagelical way of doing things they come out shooting with full-on firepower; Driscoll is roundly condemned as an all purpose heretical teacher – they don’t think in terms of shades of grey and will not accept that although Driscoll might well be badly flawed in some areas, he may be OK in others. Rather, the fundagelical tendency is to perceive the world through a polarizing filter that tends to put the latest “big preach” either into the category of a man of God or a false teaching emissary of Satan who is spreading delusion among the gullible Christian flock. By way of example a fundagelical group who would likely see Driscoll in a very bad light, repentance or no repentance, would be the reformo-charismatics, one of whom made a visit to my blog and subsequently became the subject of my scrutiny. (Among the reformo-charismatics a certain Barry Smith was their flawed teacher, a man whose wild millennium bug prognostications ended in grief)

Christianity magazine, however, points a finger of blame at Christian leaders.

“I believe many people were expecting more and certainly expecting more of the men who had a sacred duty to love the church, to love the people and to love Mark Driscoll” he [Petry] said following the resignation. “I  believe [the leaders] failed miserably."

…if there are lessons to be learned  from the rise and fall of Driscoll perhaps it is the importance of older and wiser mentors for young church leaders.

No, I don’t think that is going help because, I propose, it is the inherent ethos and concepts of evangelical leadership that is part of problem. Driscoll had contact with fellow apostolic ministry restoratonist Terry Virgo. Virgo is no doubt an older and wiser leader, but he still holds on to the over-confident fundagelical epistemic and in particular to teaching about submission, authority and patriarchy. It is the flawed evangelical epistemic receptacle that allows dubious personalities like Driscoll to have their authoritarian way without accountability. In his contact with Virgo it seems Driscoll didn’t learn very much, and least of all is Virgo likely to have made Driscoll aware of the weaknesses in fundagelical culture and ethos that conspire to allow ministries like that of Driscoll to grow unchecked before it’s too late. 

You will find some or all of the following cognitive complex I’ve listed below among fundagelicals. This complex grows out of the nutrient bed of intellectual marginalization and existential angst that one finds among fundagelicals. Consequently, fundagelical culture has reacted with (over) compensations and affectations of self-confidence. Here is my list of descriptors of aspects of fundagelicalism that constitute its ugly and all too human facets of spiritual conceit and self-deceit:

Epistemic certainty, a literal understanding of the “God’s Word” concept, a faith based on observance (belief and practice), lionizing leaders, group think and pressures, moral duress applied to dissenters, an array of anti-science concepts, susceptibility to conspiracy theorism, health and wealth teaching, patriarchy, unaccountable leadership authority, a too close identification of right wing attitudes with Christianity, a need for spiritual gurus & personality cults, anti-academic establishment, anti-intellectualism, Gnosticism, rank and file gullibility to the status quo encouraged, a cynical attitude to outsiders but not insider practices, holy remnant elitism,…..

This list will no doubt continue to grow! It is this philosophical complex that is behind the gullibility of the fundagelical rank and file. It is this compliant rank and file who are ultimately responsible for helping to foster leaders like Driscoll by giving them a platform through which they can impose their personality defects on the church.

See here for Part II: http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-mark-driscoll-affair-part-ii.html 


Relevant link:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/god-father.html

The "visiting speaker" refered to in this post was none other than Mark Driscoll

Power, Heroic Purpose and Community?

British jihadists join a real life shoot'em up.

There was an interesting article in the August edition of “Premier Christianity” magazine by Martin Saunders about computer gaming entitled “The Gospel According to Minecraft”. I was particularly struck by the following comments by Saunders in connection with video gaming pundit Jane McGonigal (My highlights):

McGonigal argues [that] gamers are just people who’ve discovered a more compelling lifestyle in the online world. As video game avatars, they can be faster and stronger. Yet the ability to perform superhuman feats isn’t what hooks them in; it’s the sense that the game offers them purpose.

MocGonigal writes ‘Gamers want to know where, in the real world, is that sense of being fully alive, focused and engaged in every moment? Where is the gamer feeling of power, heroic purpose and community? Where is the heart-expanding thrill of success and team victory? While gamers may experience these pleasures occasionally in their real lives, they experience them almost constantly when they’re playing their favourite games’.

Increasing numbers of people are finding the antidote to the frustration and emptiness of their real-world lives in video games, rejecting an authentic but disappointing world for one that has been engineered to make them happy. Digital culture expert Josh Jost also believes that gamers are searching for qualities that they lack in real life. He identifies these are ‘significance’ and ‘the belief that life matters’

What interests me here has less to do with video gaming per se than the human social motivational complex revealed, a complex especially apparent in the connotational content of the words I have emboldened. We see in these words why video games, by connecting with overriding human emotions, are so popular. But coming back to the real world from the video game the average person may suffer an overwhelming sense of anticlimax: The words that express the real world experience may be more like this:

Purposelessness, aimlessness, emptiness, boredom, humdrum, routine, listlessness, insignificance, social anonymity, social fragmentation, no sense of belonging, alienation, estrangement, thwarted ambition and aspiration, trivialization, unimportance, inconsequential, irrelevance, marginalisation, ineffectual, powerlessness, disengaged, hopelessness, demystification, profanity, failure…..

Western societies are good at keeping people relatively safe, comfortable and prosperous, but with it often rather bored and unfulfilled in the deepest sense of the word; especially those of a restless seeking spirit. An unsatiated human motivational complex seeks fulfillment in finding purposes that matter. Religion has the potential to satisfy this complex, but it also has a well-known downside: Sects and cults exploit this complex and use it in perverse ways. Many migrants at the French port of Calais are endangering their lives in hazardous attempts to cross the channel to Britain illegally. And yet in the light of the above quote it is no surprise that many British Jihadists have left their safe, comfortable and prosperous country to fight in a war they have little chance of winning.  It is ironic, but really no surprise when you think about it, that Britain, the pluralist sardine tin country that so many are trying squeeze into, should become an exporter of terrorists!

Relevant links:

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-riddle-of-sphinx.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/how-to-know-you-know-you-know-it.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-escape-to-arcadia.html

Postion Statement

(Click to enlarge)

The above is a copy of an article from the Radio Times. It is an article about Jewish Historian Simon Schama who says he's "not an atheist". It was the title text of this article that first piqued my interest:

Simon Schama feels Jewish to his bones but also passionately British  - so why does he hate tribal identities?

In the article Schama goes on to make some comments about tribalism that cut the mustard with me. Tribalism is, in fact, a subject which has of late been the focus of my attention. In particular, tribalism has an association with religious fundamentalism and cultism in as much as they are ways of reacting to the big anonymous societies that have resulted of industrialization. (See here). These societies are no longer partitioned into cognitively manageable sub-communities and there has been a departure of many old epistemic certainties, along with clear moral values, a sense of belonging, of purpose, of sacredness, of destiny and above all a tribal need to know who are the real "aliens". Religious fundamentalist groups reassert all these things with a vengeance!

I started my Christian life as a moderate evangelical; in particular I was very struck by the message of unmerited salvation from sin and its concomitants of repentance, forgiveness, new life and the unconditional love of God. Above all I found and marveled at the sacrificial God of Philippians chapter 2. These things still give the only meaning to my life that is worth reporting.  However, after many years of experiencing the fundamentalist, sectarian and cultish wings of evangelicalism it is clear that as far as partisan Christianity is concerned these true fundamentals of the faith are just so much enticing window dressing fronting the bondage of an observance based faith. Claims to knowing Christ in the sense I have given at the beginning of this paragraph are likely to be disqualified by sectarian and partisan Christians unless one follows their accompanying set of proprietary tribal observances in terms of belief and practice. Attempts to argue the toss are likely to be seen in a very dim light indeed; they much prefer interlocutors who eat out of their hand. For example, see my blog post on the appropriately named Nigel Wright below (Viz: I'm Wright and You're Wrong!); he is but one sufferer of the epistemic trauma that plagues Western societies.

Like Schama I hate those tribal identities!

Some Relevant links:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/im-wright-and-youre-wrong.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/fundamentalism-vs-evangelicalism.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-watchtower-bible-and-tract-society.html

http://noumenacognitaanddreams.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/behold-we-go-up-to-jerusalem.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-paranoiac-mind-of.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-escape-to-arcadia.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/mouth-of-god.html

In one sense, my full position statement can be found here:

http://www.vulnerablemission.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OB_Spring_2014.pdf

For the third time: The Suspicious Mind of the Fundamentalist**

Beware; Vehement and convinced fundamentalist at work

In a post dated June 20 and entitled "Do not fret because of evil doers" Ken Ham quotes Ps 37:1-9. So which evil doers is Ken talking about now? Islamic terrorists? Selfish businessmen? Politicians and judges who accept bribes? Drug cartel leaders? Corrupt police? Cruel dictators?  No, its President Obama speaking at an LGBT event where he talked about plans for an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.

Ken Ham isn't part of a cult I'm glad to say, but he has a sectarian mentality and all the cult-precursors are there in his mindset. Interestingly, Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell, started out in a similar way to Ham as supremo of an organisation that provided media and resources to Christians; Ham Russell just got more and more insistent that people should follow his ideas; either that or go to hell. 

I always attach a kind of mental heath warning when I'm talking about social relations with fundamentalists: Such relationships, because of the fundamentalist's self assumed position of spiritual superiority and authority, cannot be carried out in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. Unless one is eating out of their hand doctrinally speaking one is treated by fundies with deep suspicion, perhaps even thought of as a dupe of the world wide conspiracy against them. For the fundamentalist the "mystery of sin" is an imaginative construction that is thought to be lurking like a conspirator behind the scenes as the motivator of otherwise quite innocuous behaviour. For impressionable people this subtle social pressure can ease in an acquiescence.

Addendum 28/06/14: For some typical Full-on-Hell-and-Hamnation see a post by Ken Ham dated June 26 and entitled The Leaders of the Presbyterian Church USA need to Fear God. Fear is the name of the game as far as Ham in concerned. He quotes from Micah 3:1-5. This passage is a very strong condemnation of the social injustice found in Judah at the time; it is in fact a very "socialist" message*. The evangelical Inter Varsity Press Bible commentary says of Micah: "His concern and interest seem to be centred a little more upon the plight of the oppressed lower classes than was  the case  with his contemporary, Isaiah". But for Ham this strongly worded passage provides an ideal template for satisfying his urge to condemn. Wrenching it out of context he applies it to PCUSA in connection with their sanctioning gay weddings. In his quote Ham emphasizes "evil deeds" and the reference to a "Holy War" against God by putting them in bold. This is a classic case of the fundamentalist who goes in with maximum firepower against those who think differently, declaring how utterly depraved they are. As I've already implied "fear" is fundamentalism's nuclear button, a button it's always pressing: Fundamentalists will try to instill fear and they can only do this by condemning in the strongest possible terms with the implicit assumption that they speak as the mouth of God. To quote Ham:  But God always has the last say! Every one of these leaders will one day die and have to face the God against whom they have declared war.* Bypassing all the Biblical words about social injustice Ham takes a passage out of context and uses it to give Divine authority to his opinions by attempting to instill fear.

Lots and lots of relevant links this time; mostly as "notes to self" though:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-paranoiac-mind-of.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/hell-and-hamnation-at-work.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/oh-and-by-way-ken.html  

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/hell-and-hamnation-ii.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/hell-and-hamnation.html  

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/im-wright-and-youre-wrong.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/fundamentalist-schismogenesis.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/further-notes-on-mouth-of-god.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/mouth-of-god.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/more-good-news-from-ken-ham.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/fundamentalist-argument-clinic-part-4.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-watchtower-bible-and-tract-society.html 

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/systems-theory-and-religious-cults.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/social-pecking-order-in-fundamentalism.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lies-lies-damnable-lies-and-conspiracy.html 

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/fundies-cultists-conspiracy-theorists.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/conspiracy-and-apocalypse.html

Footnote:
* ...in the sense that a decentralized-looking-after-number-one-ethos is not sufficient to run a just society.
** ...suspicious of those beyond the sect's tribal barriers, that is.  Within the sect, however, gullibility towards it's gurus tends to be the norm.

Fundamentalism vs Evangelicalism?

The smug and self-assured look of the Fundamentalist in this cartoon is very appropriate; it is indicative of epistemic arrogance. And yet ironically that arrogance is a reaction to epistemic insecurity promoted by Western culture. The fundamentalist easily mistakes epistemic humility for the existential angst expressed in Western postmodernism and relativism and as this post goes on to suggest the fundamentalist false dichotomy that separates out "God's Word" from secular society is a trope that exploits folk misconceptions about the nature of language.

A recent address by a fundamentalist has prompted me to give urgent attention to the question of what distinguishes fundamentalism from moderate evangelicalism. I wrote this essay in response to this address, but in the post below I explore these ideas further.

What is the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist?  That is a question I have been pondering recently and this post gives some of my first thoughts on this subject. The relation is not simple; in fact I think it’s true to say that one group is a subset of the other: That is, fundamentalist Christians are evangelicals but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Moreover, as is so often the case with our classification schemes it is likely we are dealing with fuzzy classes here with no sharp cut-off criteria: There is an imperceptible gradation from fundamentalism to non-fundamentalism and although the extreme ends of the spectrum can be distinguished it is often difficult to sharply separate out evangelical and fundamentalist; no surprise then that one sometimes comes across the term “fundagelical”. But the fact is there is certainly a difference between the moderate evangelicals one finds, say, writing in a Christian magazine like “Christianity” (Now called “Premier Christianity”) and fundamentalists. The latter are ferociously jealous over their strict & particular observance of belief and practice. Any departure from these observances is considered to be a very grave matter indeed. In consequence “fundies” have uncompromising heresy detectors and particular “heresies” like, say, a belief in an “old earth” can have the equivalent effect of rendering a believer “ritually unclean”.

Moderate evangelicals and fundamentalists often hold similar doctrines, but moderate evangelicals are more prepared to accept that there are other Christians out there of different culture to themselves and yet who still classify as Christians. Fundamentalists, in contrast, are at best very grudging in their acceptance of other Christian subcultures as genuinely Christian and at worst they will not even accept moderate evangelicals as authentically Christian.

Both fundamentalists and moderate evangelicals have taken on board traditional and literal slanting interpretations of the Bible, but when compared to moderate evangelicals there are great differences in the collective personality of fundamentalist communities and this in turn effects fundamentalist attitudes to Christians who don’t stand in their traditions. For fundamentalists the concept of Divine Grace is very much bound up with what they believe to be right observance of belief and practice; their logic is that surely a true believer would believe and follow the truth, truth which, of course, they believe is found amongst fundamentalists of like mind. A consequence of this is that fundamentalists have a tendency to believe that professing Christians who do not follow the exacting letter of their observance driven faith fail to do so because of sinful wilfulness and a bad conscience, and are therefore in danger of placing themselves beyond Divine Grace. It is no surprise then that fundamentalists have a dim view of humanity beyond the pale of their culture. In consequence they have a collective susceptibility for the paranoiac fantasies of conspiracy theory; in particular, if you are a robust opponent of what they stand for you are likely to be viewed as a scheming sinner. And yet fundamentalists sects do not form a united front against what they perceive as an evil persecuting world. Their exacting demand for obedience to a proprietary collection of observances means that what appears to the outsider as marginal differences between fundamentalist sects, will actually register as wide diverges amongst the fundamentalists themselves. Therefore fundamentalists can fall out very sharply. Ultimately, then, it is not content that defines fundamentalism but attitude, method and ethos and these are very much bound up with their literally interpreted “Word of God” epistemic.

It is the “Word of God” epistemic that is the most distinctive feature of fundamentalism and it is here that fundamentalism’s defining error lies: As a rule fundamentalists have a concept of language that takes insufficient account of the strongly connotational character of natural language whereby meaning is proactively assigned by the reader given his intellectual, experiential and cultural context. The fundamentalist is inclined to see meaning as intrinsic to scripture rather than extrinsic to it: That is, the fundamentalist model of language interpretation is seen as the reader extracting meaning from the words just as one might extract metal from ore. Once that extraction is thought to have taken place (which usually means simply following certain traditional interpretations) the fundamentalist believes he has something immutable and absolute which he literally "possesses" and which stands distinct from the surrounding world. The consequence of this is that fundamentalism sees the Bible in very literalistic and notational terms rather than connotational terms. The fundamentalist usually takes little or no epistemic responsibility for what he thinks he has extracted from scripture and he is very likely to pass the buck on to God but asking rhetorically “Has God not said……?” as if that is sufficient to end all dispute.

For the fundamentalist getting meaning from the Bible is in practice thought to be a relatively trivial exercise. For example, in response to the enigma of assigning Biblical meaning I have heard fundamentalists say things like “God can well say what he means”, “No interpretation is needed”, “The historical parts of the Bible, such as Genesis, should be taken at face value, otherwise it is tantamount to calling God a liar!”. On two occasions I have put before fundamentalists “Harries formula”, Meaning = Text + Context, and on both occasions received superficial and flippant answers. In summary: Fundamentalists have trouble taking Bible interpretation seriously perhaps because they are unwilling to put their traditional interpretations under review and instead justify them with the lazy rubric “It’s God’s Word”.

There is probably such a thing as the fundamentalist personality. That is, certain types of personality seem to get drawn to a very literal treatment of the Bible and will subsequently join the embattled heroic tribal-remnant communities that promulgate these kinds of Biblical readings. But modern culture probably plays an important role in inadvertently promoting these numerous fundamentalist sects. For a start, large industrial societies can be very anonymous and they lack a sense of belonging and so a reversion to tribalism beckons as a way of breaking up society into less anonymous groups. Secondly, the Modern world is a confusing welter of information and contradictory voices; therefore trying to form a definitive world view from all the evidence is difficult if not impossible. As William Irwin Thompson has said:

When information is so immense that man cannot keep up with it and still be purely rational, he has a choice: he can freak out and become tribal again to attack the old naïve rational values in the guise of a Luddite-student; or he can effect a quantum leap in consciousness to re-vision the universe….re-vision the universe in the mystical, mathematical, and scientific forms of the new Pythagoreanism….

The absence of ultimate religious values and cosmic purpose can leave a very big void in the lives of citizens in industrial societies, societies that in effect tell the individual to get on with the work of world view synthesis by themselves; unlike mediaeval societies modern societies offer little or no guidance on such matters. As Thompson implies this helps promote a reaction which favours the cosier and cognitively more tractable worlds of introverted tribal mythologies. For the personality who finds it burdensome to cope with an epistemically open ended world the notion of the Bible offering a closed ended epistemic whereby definitive meaning is somehow trapped inside the covers of a 1000 page book is very attractive. Fundamentalist communities offer this epistemic because it acts as a tribal shibboleth for separating out the sheep from the goats and reducing community sizes to humanly amenable horizons. Detractors can be written off with “You’re using man’s ideas; we’re using God’s very words”. But this “man’s ideas vs. God’s word” dichotomy is bogus. That the scriptures don't “contain” meaning but rather generate meaning by harnessing the resources of context makes it impossible to separate out God’s Word and man’s ideas as per the fundamentalist’s distorted epistemic represented by the cartoon above (I found this cartoon on a fundamentalist web site). The Holy Spirit’s sovereign management is everywhere and anywhere commending truthful meaning to individuals by diverse contextual means at His omnipotent disposal. This concept of God’s immanence cuts across the folk philosophy that localizes meaning by believing it to be an intrinsic property of scripture. Rather, Biblical meaning is an extrinsic property of scripture, a property assigned by social context, but – and this is important – a context managed by the immanent and sovereign Holy Spirit. Scripture is God breathed in the sense that the wind of Holy Spirit choreographs contexts to bring forth the growth from the seed of  His Word (1 Peter 1:23).

It is truism that all signals, signs, symbols and words which arrive at our doorstep can only have significance and meaning if they trigger a proactive interpretation process that embraces cognition, culture and context. It is the failure of fundamentalism to seriously engage this truism that, I submit, is its main distinguishing feature. Moderate evangelicals, as a rule, are more humble in their epistemic attitudes. In contrast the personalities and cultures of fundamentalist communities prefer to believe that they have a very direct connection to the Divine Mind. In consequence they may intimidate cooperation using what they claim to be the very commands of God. For them meaning is a black and white affair that sorts out the sheep from the goats; shades of grey are not part of their language. The fundamentalist personality will do his utmost to bring others into line because the fundamentalist is so convinced he is in very direct contact with absolute truth.

The many information packets we receive from the Bible and the rest of the cosmos are like seeds that land in the nutrient bed of  a cultural and cognitive epistemic matrix that responds to these seeds by “growing” meanings from them. This process of growth is not trivial and should not to be taken for granted: We are responsible for the upkeep of the seed bed and therefore we have epistemic responsibility for the assignment of meaning. And yet at the same time we understand that our responsibilities of maintenance only extend to planting and watering; it is a sovereign God that gives growth. (1 Cor 3:6ff)

The above is another misconceived fundamentalist trope: It fails to take into account that the Bible is a set of signals which we interpret and understand through the lens of our culture and cognition; but in that lens God is immanent and sovereign,

Some relevant links:
http://www.vulnerablemission.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OB_Spring_2014.pdf

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-ultimate-conspiracy-theory.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-suspicious-mind-of-fundamentalist.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-paranoiac-mind-of.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-escape-to-arcadia.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/hell-and-hamnation-at-work.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2012/09/im-wright-and-youre-wrong.html 

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/ken-is-not-amused.html 

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/beyond-our-ken-on-mature-creation-part.html  

The Suspicious Mind of the Fundamentalist...again!

Ken once again finds himself at odds with a "compromising" church

In a blog post entitled “Hank Hanegraaff falsely accuses me on national-radio” and dated 4 June, abrasive fundamentalist Ken Ham demands that evangelical radio presenter Hank Hanegraaff withdraw the following statement made by Hanegraaff on national radio:  

……in some of the videos that we have featured on the broadcast with respect to flight or metamorphosis, we have a young earth creationist named Paul Nelson. I have the utmost respect for him. He is wise, he is discerning, he is gentle, he is kind, he does what he does with gentleness and with respect. 

On the other hand there are young earth creationists that make their particular position an acid test for orthodoxy and therefore if you don’t hold their position, you are not a Christian. And unfortunately, Ken Ham has come very close to doing that or has actually done that. Sometimes I wonder if you give him the utmost charity you can say almost done that, but it seems like he has oftentimes pointed to individuals who hold to a position that the universe is old, as those who have given up the Christian faith.

Ken Ham’s position, as he has stated on many occasions, is that YEC is not a salvation issue, but an authority issue and on this basis he asks Hanegraaff to withdraw his “accusation”. But notice that Hanegraaff is very careful with his words; he is not accusing Ham of using YEC as a test for salvation. but as a test for orthodoxy.  (Where, of course, Ham considers his views to be the measure of orthodoxy).

In my view what Hanegraaff has said above is entirely justified and his statement should not be withdrawn. Rather, Ham should withdraw his claim that Hanegraaff has made a “false accusation”. Ham, as is the wont of the hardened heretic hunting fundamentalists with a tendency to see things in black and white, is blind to Hanegraaff’s nuanced  expression (just as he was to PZ Myers' nuance highlighted in my last post): Viz: Ham ...has come very close to doing that or has actually done that...., ....almost done that.... In particular Ham has often times pointed to individuals who hold to a position that the universe is old, as those who have given up the Christian faith.

See the first link below for an example where Ken Ham has come very close to making YEC a faith testing shibboleth, if not a test for salvation itself: Moreover, notice also that when Ham doesn't get his way he starts to use spiritually threatening language:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-escape-to-arcadia.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/hell-and-hamnation-at-work.html 

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/evidence-of-hams-religious-extremism.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/hell-and-hamnation.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/hell-and-hamnation-ii.html 

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/church-in-england-spiritually-dead.html 

I also agree with Hanegraaff that YECs like Paul Nelson, (and evangelicals like Hanegraaff) are intelligent and reasonable people one can do business with. However, I can’t say the same about Ken Ham; but then he was one time business partner of John McKay (and in fact still supports McKay - see below) so what do you expect? Ham ought  to ask himself why it  is he that gets the flak and Nelson doesn't!

John McKay,  friend of Ken Ham, has himself made some strange accusations!

The Suspicious Mind of the Fundamentalist

I have on occasion remarked on the tendency of fundamentalists (and cultists) to see ubiquitous "sin and Satan" amongst those who don't follow and/or identify with their system of observance.  For example, I might call myself a "Christian" but as far as the fundamentalist is concerned I'm likely to be beyond the pale and as such my motives, whatever I do and say, are suspect and subject to a creeping evil. On more than one occasion I've been taken aback to find what I believe to be quite innocuous talk being interpreted as malign (See my side bar link to my post on Nigel Wright for instance). This behaviour on the part of the fundamentalist is down to a belief in the total depravity of the world outside their sect;  this exo-sect world is seen through a distorting weltanschauung which tends to superimpose malign ulterior motives especially if it involves robust opposition to their system of observances.

A recent example of this behaviour has come to light in a post on atheist PZ Myers blog. See here:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/30/is-ken-ham-literate/

In this post Myers refers to a Facebook post by Ken Ham. Apparently Ham is unable to distinguish the difference been "Tax incentives" and "Taxpayer money". He's claiming that atheists are saying that his "Ark Park" project will receive "Taxpayer money" (which according to Ham it  won't) when in fact these atheists are saying that it will receive Tax incentives, which is something different. The suspicious fundamentalist mentality of Ken Ham, very liable to detect "sin" even when not present, reads Taxpayer money instead of Tax incentives. This, of course, is seen by Ham as an example of atheist lying, evil and a desire to spread mischief: On finding this "sin" one can almost see the man tearing his clothes like the high priest in Matthew 26:65, so uptight is he about atheist behaviour. It is easy to see why the fundamentalist mind is susceptible to conspiracy theories.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

Here's a VNP relevant post that I have placed on my "quantum non-linearity" Blog:
http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-watchtower-bible-and-tract-society.html
The above picture is a front cover from one of their "Watchtower" Magazines.  I found this picture on the internet with the name "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians". Well, may be, but you can be sure that this concession will not be reciprocated!

David Tomlinson and the Post Evangelical

 "Firstly you must understand that I don't come as a safe pair of hands!"

The March edition of Christianity Magazine holds an article on “Post Evangelical” Christian David Tomlinson. In the article Tomlinson tells something of his story: He was brought up in the Brethren Church, but eventually moved into Charismatic Restorationism where he had a spiritual experience. But falling foul of the growing patriarchy and authoritarianism of its leaders Tomlinson soured of Restorationism (and also evangelicalism as a whole it seems) and left to become the Church of England’s postmodern rebel vicar that he is today.

For me Tomlinson’s name goes right back to 1982 when I was prompted to study the charismatic Restoration movement. I had got interested because I had already investigated various Christian sects and the Restorationists of that time looked as though they were Christian evangelicals simply reinventing the familiar trappings of the sect complex; e.g. spiritual elitism, leaders with authority, tight knit exclusive communities, Gnosticism, overrating their own importance etc; above all such groups have some kind of rationale, often bound up with their "end times" theology, as to why they have made a sudden appearance amidst what they consider to be the otherwise run-down or semi-apostate state of the Christian culture that surrounds them. For example, JWs and Mormons both have stories they tell that justify their late appears. But in the case in point the rationale is implicit in the term "Restoration"; this group believed they were God's kingdom restored to its proper New Testament glory (Another term I have heard used in a similar way is the word "Recovery", a word used by the Witness Lee Brotherhood). Fortunately they never really went quite as far as becoming an exclusive sect, but at the time it looked a close-run-thing to me.

And so as I studied the Restoration magazines of ‘79 and ‘80 up popped Tomlinson’s name. In those days he was a leader in a Restoration community run by big-man “apostle” Bryn Jones. Jones' authority “covered” a particular brand of Restorationism that had communities across the land and this included a church in my city who called themselves Norwich Christian Fellowship. The claim to covering authority was, and always is, bogus in as much as no Western religious leader can in principle impose his will on another: The leaders of Christian communities have neither economic nor coercive control of the Christians in their fellowships; after all, the people under “covering authority” can in theory simply walk out. But of course the practice is far more insidious: For religious authority to work in the Western church it must engage in serious (self) deceptions about its legitimacy to authoritatively dispense knowledge of God’s will when guiding followers. Unfortunately this deception often works well especially if the “advice” from leaders is backed up by threats of divine displeasure if it isn't followed. Moreover, the best deceivers are those leaders who really believe their own deceptions and this is almost always true of those religious leaders who rank themselves as having "covering authority" over believers.

However, back to the story of David Tomlinson. Tomlinson was interviewed in the May/June 1979 edition of Restoration Magazine. As one of the leaders of the community under Bryn Jones covering authority he had recently visited a church in Argentina in order to spread the word about the Christian Restoration. In the magazine article Tomlinson was asked questions about his visit. In the light of Tomlinson’s subsequent history this interview is in my opinion very telling as it hints at his eventual change of heart. The Restoration magazines in my possession were borrowed and so I had to write out sections of text from these magazines which I did in blue ink and then added my own comments in red ink.  Here then is the typescript taken from my notes:  See if you too can sense that for Tomlinson the goal posts where moving. But as you read these notes remember that at this juncture Tomlinson is still at the stage where he needed to play to the restorationist gallery by affirming their message; namely,  that churches should get under a covering system of apostles and prophets:

Title of article “HELLO ARGENTINA”: An interview with David Tomlinson.

My comment in 1982: Tomlinson gives some general comments on the spiritual state of the church in Argentina. So far there is not much hint of the specific restorationist message until he is asked:

Question: What were you able to share that would help make further progress (Editor’s note: progress re. Restorationism)

Tomlinson: I’ve already alluded to their different starting place. They have developed out of an emphasis on Christ’s authority and a strong concept of a pastoral ministry; hence their emphasis on making disciples etc. Over here (i.e. in the UK) church renewal has stemmed out of a more charismatic approach; that is gifts and ministries of the Spirit. They were appreciative of our open and practical teaching on the relevance of apostles and prophecy in the church today as those bringing over-sight, vision and guidance to churches under their care. Hopefully we were not only able to bring teaching on the subject, but also to help “push the boat out of the harbor”

(Editor’s note: Tomlinson has just played to the Restorationist leadership gallery to keep them happy. But then there is this)

My Comment in 1982: Seemingly the Buenos Aires church had no “structural emphasis” on apostles and prophets. This may well have abashed Tomlinson as he now follows up with an answer to this question:

Question: I know that you were blessed in giving to them. What do you feel your received?

Tomlinson: A deep challenge regarding the quality of life I saw leaders building into the people in their care. A couple of the jig-saw pieces fell into place in my own life, especially through my fellowship with brothers like Keith Bentson. Since I returned I have found my ministry directed strongly toward the individuals walk with God, in the conviction that this is where the strength of our churches lies. Modes of structure, leadership and ministries are all of them important (Editor’s note: That’s right, keep the gallery sweet!) but there can be no substitute for a close walk with God.

My Comment in 1982: Perhaps Tomlinson sensed that the Restorationist “structural emphasis” was rather lost in the real and uncontrived world of the Argentine churches. He also sensed that the real message of the Gospel is directed toward the restoration of the human system rather than the social system – that comes first and social systems are a product of it. In fact we have here a coupled pair:

Individual state ó social relations

It is at the level of the individual that the gospel beaks into this cycle. Like us all Tomlinson may have undergone the experience of seeing how God’s work easily breaks out of the categories we have formed.

….easily breaks out of the categories we have formed.  In 1982 it wasn’t yet clear how category breaking and iconoclastic Tomlinson was going to get! Somehow one senses that Tomlinson’s off the peg Restorationist message about structure and authority is a poor fit given the realities of this Argentinian church. And Tomlinson also senses it. But he is still endeavoring to keep the Restorationist gallery sweet by making sure he puts in all that sycophantic stuff about the importance of leaders.

I’m convinced that Tomlinson was feeling the beginnings of disaffection even in 1979 and was starting to shake himself free of the religious delusions of the restorationist community. So, I wasn’t at all surprised when Tomlinson’s name popped up again in a 1995 review of his book “The Post Evangelical”. By then he clearly had had enough of it all. And by then so had I! I had started out as a moderate evangelical myself in 1973. But by 1995 I had seen more than enough of the excesses of late 20th century evangelicalism: Viz: its weakness for fundamentalism, its Biblical literalism, its anti-science,  its commentators whose excuse for their mediocrity was that they were “in the spirit”, its gnosticism, its bizarre practices, its false prophecies, its authoritarianism, its conspiracy theories and sometimes its downright cultism. I had also seen my fair share of those whose mental problems were disguised by reinterpreting them as spiritual insight; “nutcases” to use the vernacular. To be fair we must acknowledge that many evangelicals eschew all this, but the fact was evangelicalism seemed to be too weak in its cognitive critical immune system to sift out bogus claims and so when those claims came along evangelicals were easy prey. So, given the context of this backdrop Tomlinson’s title “The Post Evangelical” struck a chord with me when I first heard it.

In March’s Christianity article Tomlinson says the following about the phrase “Post Evangelical”:

I see the phrase as a sort of pastoral device, rather than a new systematic theology. For a lot of people who would otherwise feel there was no place for them in church, suddenly this term was a symbol of hope. Obviously it connects with the wider term “postmodernity”. I was trying to contextualize this critical journey people were going on, in terms of their evangelical past, with what was happening in the wider cultural setting.

Tomlinson is probably too postmodern for me, but otherwise he hits the nail on the head. A pastoral device? A journey? Too right! When I first heard the title The Post Evangelical it alone seemed to sum up my feelings, position and connote a microcosm of critical analysis of evangelicalism. Somehow I knew just how Tomlinson felt! The fact is, however, I have never read Tomlinson’s book. But then perhaps I don’t I need to: As Tomlinson himself says in Christianity’s article, when he thought about the phrase Post Evangelical “it immediately felt that you know what it meant” And so it was with me: To a person who felt  there was no place for them in church Tomlinson’s pastoral phrase had done its work! ....

When the Benny Hinn Show came to City

Religious melodrama can be popular.

An account of my personal reaction to the Benny Hinn show at Norwich football stadium on 23 July 2005 can be downloaded  from here. ("File" drop down and then "download").

As a taster, here is my postscript which I have appended to the account:

I have written many words on the subject Gnostic Christianity, but we may now be passing into days when the swing is away from Christianity with a Gnostic flavouring. A string of false prophecies, authoritarian leadership, failed revivals, failed prophecies, ambiguous healings, and bizarre “blessings” has emptied the language of the cliché surfing anti-intellectual Gnostics. In short they have nothing new to say and their talk of the “latest move of God” no longer has the impact that it once had and, indeed, may now be received with some measure of cynicism.  However, memories are short and new inexperienced people enter the fray. So this sort of thing is likely to be recrudescent!

It is an irony that supporters of this kind performance will see it as an outpouring of the "supernatural", but to me it looks all too human in motivation and manifestation.

The Escape to Arcadia

Fundamentalism: The attempt to restore a unified sense of community anchored in epistemic certainties in the face of a puzzling and uncertain world.

The recent resurgence in science denying Young Earthism among Western evangelical Christians appears to trace back to the sixties. It is probably related to the ideological pressures that Western Christianity came under during that decade. The assertion of a more pronounced, emphatic and extreme belief system seems to be the manifestation of a general psychological response when a community finds itself under the pressures of marginalization and alienation: As society rejects the beliefs and values of these communities, the more belligerent elements in them haul up the draw bridges, repair the walls of defence, and generally do all they can define themselves as a distinct holy remnant separate from their social environment, challenging the values of their host society from their citadel. In fact they are inclined to become more vehement and convinced about the very beliefs that society rejects as crazy; as if sheer conviction conveys truth.

In effect these religious communities are returning the “compliment” of alienation by rejecting society’s values and that is likely to include its science. The likely underlying motive is the need to turn their backs on social fragmentation, rejection, anonymity, nihilism and restore a unified sense of community anchored in epistemic certainties. In these retrenched religious communities a varying blend of epistemic certainty, scriptural literalism, Gnosticism, fideism, religious legalism, paranoia and conspiracy theory feeds their mental complex. A side effect of this whole process is that liberalizing believers are purged from their ranks and subject to strident and shrill condemnation as at best bad conscience compromisers or at worst heretical apostates.

That the resurgence of Genesis literalism is a recent phenomenon is in fact effectively admitted by fundamentalist theme park manager Ken Ham himself where in a blog post entitled “Happy Reformation Day” (31 October 2013) he applauds the reference to the 1960s YEC rival as “The Creation Reformation”. Prior to the sixties there was only a low background of Genesis literalism, a background found amongst the more extreme Christian sects like the Adventists, the Amish, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Plymouth brethren and I guess numerous marginal fundamentalist Christian sects in North America (See footnote *1). Since the rise of science YEC was never mainstream.

In this blog post I want to document some of the texts I have compiled that may help demonstrate this process of neo-fundamentalist polarization against civic society. There is a health warning I attach to all sectarian and fundamentalist religions especially when it borders on the cultish; it can be dangerous, (especially to those seeking a revelation from God) for those who might be vulnerable to the suggestion pressures caused by the kind of emotional, social and moral duress sects are capable of bringing to bear on Christian believers. It is axiomatic amongst extreme sectarians that those who don’t exclusively identify with their community have morally compromised consciences, and an inferior faith or perhaps are even in a state of total depravity, sold out to evil. This belief about the flawed moral state of outsiders justifies putting moral duress on them by way of character assassination and accusations of sin.  They are very quick to read moral imperfection in the behaviour of detractors. This can have deep auto-suggestive effect on those who are already God fearers and who are aware of the human failure to fulfil moral imperatives. Some sects are undoubtedly less extreme than others but I would advise that God fearers, unless they are well armoured with cynical humour, are cautious in all cases.

In this blog I want to convey the extremes that the neo-fundamentalists are going to in their attempts to impugn the integrity and character of Christians who don’t bow to their views (and atheists! See for example the story of PZ Myers that I relate below).

***

OK, so I’ll start with some quotes from my favorite text book fundamentalist, YEC theme park manager Ken Ham. Although he claims that disbelief in his YEC opinions is not a salvation stopper he has nevertheless made it clear that those opinions are being offered as a faith testing Shibboleth.  Ham makes the simple epistemic mistake  that what he interprets from scripture is the de-facto word of God. Thus in Ham’s mind it follows from this elementary epistemic mistake that those who oppose his opinions – which of course he will claim to be God’s opinions – are also opposed to God and above all to Christ.

Below I quote from Ham’s blog by way of evidence (My emphases in bold):

Millions of Years – an attack on the Cross (June 9 2012) …..those who compromise God’s Word with millions of years are (wittingly or unwittingly) really engaged in an attack on the Cross.  What a serious issue.

What’s the least you can believe? (March 29 2012)…..Believing in theistic evolution as a Christian means you reject the authority of God’s Word, because the creation account in Genesis teaches a literal six-day creation   (Ham quoting Steve Golden) Even the idea of “theistic evolution” is problematic, because evolutionary ideas were created to explain a world without God. (Ham quoting Steve Golden)

Which Jesus do you really believe in?  (Dec 30 2011). Steve (Ham) shows that today many Christian scholars who identify themselves as theological conservatives and evangelicals are preaching a Jesus different from the Jesus of the Bible.

More about those emboldened  phrases later! But  just before we leave Ham, let's be clear that he can be a menacing and intimidating person, willing to apply maximum moral duress on his detractors: Ham has little compunction about using a threat of divine displeasure and judgement to be visited on those Christians who don't  agree with him:

Compromise teaching in a Christian school in Alaska  (March 16 2013) Teachers like Kretschmer will be held accountable for the many students they lead astray with their compromise regarding biblical authority and undermining teaching.  How very sad.  And the board/administrators of such Christian schools will also be held accountable.  

Below I collect some material from comments I have made on the churches web site “Network Norwich and Norfolk” (NN&N).  From these quotes we can see how the embattled fundamentalists turn their noisy moral, social and emotional duress up to a maximum volume. In these comments I was responding to the posts by two fundamentalists who I name as James May and Andrew Holland.

From an NN&N post 22/06/2011

There is something pathological about the doctrinaire YEC community. They are obsessed with their concept of a 6000 year old creation and they will go to extraordinary lengths to insist that other Christians follow suit. Here are some quotations from Hugh Ross’s book “Creation and Time”. Bear in mind as you read the following quotes that Dr. Ross (an astronomer by profession) is not an evolutionist, he believes in an anthropically universal flood, the inspiration of scripture, has an evangelical faith and but believes in an old Earth. In some ways you might think him to be close to the YECs and yet.....

YEC AFFINITY FOR CONSPIRACY THEORY: “When young-earth creationists claim (As did Russell Akridge among others) that the worldwide community of secular astrophysicists and astronomers are banded together in a God-hating conspiracy to deceive the public about the creation date, the offence is driven deeper. Given the tendency toward independence and nonconformity among them, it’s absurd to suggest that tens of thousands of them would or could unanimously carry out a plot through four decades to bamboozle the public” (P72)  (Editorial note: When Ross refers to "four decades" I think he is acknowledging the "YEC reformation" of the 60s)

MAKING YEC A FAITH TEST: In the following quote Hugh Ross tells the story of a new convert: “Almost immediately he met some fellow Christians who happened to be young universe creationists. They insisted that the price of his salvation was denial of the billions-of-years age of the cosmos and the earth…..They backed their case with this Bible passage: ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes even his own life – he cannot be my disciple’ (Luke 14:26-27)”. (P159)

EVANGELISM OPPORTUNITY WRECKED BY YECs “Another encounter took place near Oakridge Nuclear Facility in Tennessee, where I spoke on scientific evidence for the God of the Bible. With the room full of research physicists, I focused on proofs from physics and astronomy for a transcendent, personal and caring Creator. Unknown to me and the meetings organizers, a carload of YECs had driven for four and a half hours to make a spectacle of me at this gathering. When the question period opened they took over, attempting first to take apart my physics and astronomy data. They were furious that the scientists in the room would not join them in refuting my science. So blinded were they by their indoctrination regarding the evils of belief in the antiquity of the universe that they disrupted a meeting intended to introduce people to personal faith in Jesus Christ (including His sacrifice to atone for our sin)” (P86)

NON YEC CHRISTIANS TO BE BARRED CHURCH MEMBERSHIP?: Hugh Ross quotes YEC John Morris as follows: “I still am uncertain about young-earth creationism being a requirement for church membership; perhaps it would be proper to give new members time to grow and mature under good teaching. But I do know one thing [young-earth] creationism should be made a requirement for Christian leadership. No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday school teacher, elder, or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine” (P43))

MY COMMENT: It’s one thing to believe YEC, it’s quite another to become obsessed by it to the extent that it becomes an all-consuming crusade that sacrifices evangelical church life for its version of legalism. Recall Andrew Holland’s fanatical insinuation about making God a liar if you don’t follow Holland's views. Literalists are never subtle when it comes to imputing sinful motives:

“….the historical parts of the Bible, such as Genesis, should be taken at face value, otherwise it is tantamount to calling God a liar! Thus the account of creation, Noah's flood and Jonah's adventures are accurate and can be completely trusted. They are all verified in the New Testament.” (Andrew Holland, my emphasis)

From an NN&N post 24/06/2011

We often hear Christians referring to believers like James May (JM) and Andrew Holland (AH) as fundamentalists. However, I think you will find that JM and AH are part of a recent recrudescent trend that kicked in only in earnest from the sixties in onward. This YEC trend is, in fact, more extreme than most Christians who identified themselves with R A Torrey’s twelve volume series published between 1910 and 1915 entitled “The Fundamentals”, a work that became the manual of the early 20th  century fundamentalists. In their book “Reason and Faith”, evangelical Christians Roger Forster and Paul Marston comment as followers on the original fundamentalists:

“A few points are worth spelling out in more detail here. First, by Morris own admission [That is Henry Morris a founding father of modern YEC], most founding fundamentalists accepted either the age-day or the gap-theory form of creationism and he [Morris] can cite none who were young-earth creationists….. Orr (1844-1913), who contended for a moderate Calvinist form of historical evangelicalism in Britain and America …asserts: ‘The Bible does not profess to anticipate the scientific discoveries of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Its design is …..to reveal God and His will and His purposes of grace to men, and, as involved in this, His general relation to the creative world….Natural things are taken as they are given, and spoken of in simple, popular language, as we ourselves every day speak of them.’” (P329, my emphasis)

Forster and Marston go on to trace a link between contemporary YEC and Adventist prophetess Ellen G White through the Adventist YEC apologist George McCready Price:

“What we find then, that Price’s [YEC] appeal was to his fellow believers in the prophetess Ellen White, to some Lutheran pastors without scientific training and to the very occasional irascible person with scientific training. The bulk of critics of evolution did not accept flood theory. Even the famous lawyer/politician William Jennings Bryan, who led the abortive attack on evolution in the infamous Scopes trial, or Tennessee Monkey Trail as it became known, was (by Morris’ own admission) an age-day theorist who rejected Price and accepted orthodox geology” (P331)

MY COMMENT: JM and AH will try to make out that they stand in the best traditions of the mainstream faith, but they actually have a more natural affinity with the pre-scientific days of the faith or to sectarian and cultic Christian figures.

From an NN&N 25/06/2011

Unfortunately today the term “fundamentalism” has been cut adrift from its relatively moderate beginnings and now has a de facto meaning brought about by it being linked to religious extremists, science illiteracy and YECs. Moreover, the bad associations of the term are being compounded by a growing association with geocentrism. Firstly, the recent YEC attempts to solve the star light problem have lurched towards geocentric cosmologies (See Jason Lisle and Ross Humphreys of AiG). There is also this little piece below written by somebody who visited the “National Bible-Science Conference” which appeared to be a Geocentric Physics conference:

“How many of the creationists present were geocentrists, I do not know. One Rev. Walter Lang, a Missouri-Synod Lutheran and Executive Director of the Bible Science Association (headquartered in Minneapolis) was quite sympathetic, and I was led to conclude that the Missouri Lutherans are bringing back the geocentric doctrine. According to science-writer Robert Schadewald ….. five of the 18 speakers were known geocentrists. Just how fast "this old-time astronomy" is spreading among believers in that "old-time religion" I cannot guess, but not a single creationist spoke against it, not even Duane T. Gish, the creationists' Lochinvar of the debate circuit. Although he had a lot of quibbles with the thesis of one Dr. Kaufmann (who thought Christians should be more exercise-conscious), Gish found nothing to complain of when geocentrists were speaking…..The silence of all creationists when goof centrists were speaking is quite puzzling. Does silence mean tacit acceptance? Embarrassment? Or is it a case of honor among thieves: if you don't expose me, I won't expose you.”

The full article can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part3.html

What are we to make of this? Are the YECs starting to do the Full Literalist Monty and really going the whole hog in “taking the Bible at its (literalist) word”?

From an NN&N post 27/06/2011  

As I have indicated above, I do not accept YEC attempts to make a fundamental distinction between historical sciences which they try to undermine with the quip “You weren’t there” and those present tense continuous sciences like physics. Since all information arrives at our observational door via circuitous routes in space and time the “You weren’t there” quip could be damagingly applied across the board and, if pressed, subvert the whole domain of science and history. In this connection the following blog post of mine may be of interest:

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com/2011/06/cloistered-academics-vs-punks.html

The above post links to a post on atheist PZ Myers’ blog where he criticizes to the “You weren’t there” philosophy. The exact circumstances involve Myers criticizing an eleven year old girl who had been taught to parrot this quip by YEC ministries. Myers writes a gentle open letter to the eleven year old.

Myers letter is in my opinion very reasonable; he completely understands that the “You weren’t there” philosophy undermines not just the historical sciences, but the whole of science (In fact ultimately it even undermines the Bible). PZ Myers is basically assuming the world to be rational and coherent and it is on the basis of that assumption that “You weren’t there” nihilism is prevented from frustrating all science. Where I would disagree with Myers is that the coherent ontology that permits science to prosper is taken for granted by him as axiomatic; for him the highly coordinated patterns of a rational cosmos are just descriptive brute facts of nature; end of story. However, I would want to push the boat out further and suggest that the coherent patterning in nature is not just descriptive but prescriptive, with all the connotations of a guiding a-priori complex intelligence that the term “prescriptive” entails (i.e. God)

My main reason for bringing this up is that in spite of disagreeing with Myers on ultimate origins I’m entirely at one with him on the assumption of the intelligibility of our world, an intelligibility that is undermined by a thoroughgoing application of “You weren’t there” nihilism. Hence I support Myers’ stand against implicit YEC nihilism. What I would like to point out is that in spite of Myers reasonable and gentle open letter to an eleven year old the YEC response to Myers was all but hysterical, triggering off a frenzy of spiritual recrimination. He was accused of all sorts of heinous sins such as “viciously attacking a little girl”, and being “an instrument of Satan” amongst other self-righteous fulminations.

Although I differ with Myers’ on many things, in this instance I believe he has been unfairly treated by those who profess to be Christians. My own opinion is that those professing Christians should apologize to Myers for their treatment of him. This, I suppose, is too much to ask, but the least they could do is engage dispassionately with his perfectly reasonable argument rather than unfairly assassinating his character.

From an NN&N post 15/11/2011

The YEC philosophy is at odds with the views of many well respected Christians, evangelical and otherwise. I list some below:

William Lane Craig – philosopher and feared (amongst atheists) Christian debater.

David Instone-Brewer – writer of scholarly articles in “Christianity” magazine.

Hugh Ross - astronomer and leader of “Reasons to Believe”.

Davis A Young – Christian geologist and author of “The Biblical Flood”.

Roger Forster and Paul Marston - authors of the very instructive and erudite book “Reason and Faith”.

William Dembski – a leader and mathematician of the Intelligent design movement.

John Polkinghorne – ex particle physicist, now a C of E theologian.

John Lennox – Oxford Mathematician and gentlemanly Christian debater.

Francis Collins – very successful scientist; was leader of the human genome project.

…and many more could be added.

YEC is a sectarian and marginal philosophy which I’m glad to say seems to be becoming increasingly marginalized amongst Christians – see http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com/2011/10/good-news-from-ken-ham.html

Stop press 28/01/2014:

Adding more to the above list:

Simon Conway Morris: Cambridge evolutionary palaeontologist

Denis Alexander: Molecular biologist and director of the Faraday institute.
See also:

https://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Advisory.php 

https://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Associates.php 

These are the Christian scientists, so diverse in their interests and specialisms who, according to the Kentucky theme park management, are “really engaged in an attack on the Cross”, “rejecting the authority of God’s Word,” “explaining a world without God” and "are preaching a Jesus different from the Jesus of the Bible.” These are the words of the besieged and paranoiac sectarian mind; it's the beginning of a kind of collective insanity,  as some disturbing and well known cases suggest.

Footnote:

*1 The Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in YEC: See here: http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-watchtower-and-creation.html.  Also checking up on the cults I mention here I haven't been able to confirm either way whether they believe in YEC on not.