Creationism, The Apologetic of Belonging to the Kingdoms of Men

In 2006 Dr. Henry Morris, a world-renowned Creationist, died leaving a legacy of research that serves to prop up the beleaguered institution of Christianity, which continues to feel as though they are attacked by Evolutionists/Atheists and their rhetoric. Homeschoolers and pew warmers alike pour over the work of Creationist scholars like Dr. Morris for the latest means to “prove” the supposed meaningfulness behind their beliefs, as if they [the believer or the beliefs] are somehow disenfranchised by the continual ravings of Evolutionary theoreticians.

Up until recently, I confess that I wouldn’t have even thought to press deeper into this subject. I had already concluded the alleged wisdom of apologetically engaging Evolutionary thought, especially as it has become so widely accepted. Although, as I have begun to peel the layers of the onion, man’s thinking which I have accepted, I find a rather odd situation. I find myself rethinking that which would seem to most religious people; impossible to rethink. Here’s why.

So many questions as to why we would engage the argument of Evolution have surfaced since I have started to rethink the real essence of apologetics and its recent expression in Creationism. These aren’t the garden-variety basic questions. These questions are the type that in answering them honestly; will demand for more invasive questions. Questions we don’t have simple answers for, questions whose answers divulge our true purposes; stripped of the smooth justifications we’ve given them.

Questions aren’t just the means of discovery; sometimes they are the means of discovering how we have hidden the truth from ourselves. Discovery, say I? Indeed! To discover, one can question what is thought to be foregone conclusions as well as what is still obscure. If great discoverers in history hadn’t questioned certain accepted conclusions, it is unthinkable to imagine where civilization might still be today had these inquisitives not grappled with what had been accepted as correct.

Should religious sentiments be reserved from this process of question?

Certainly, we cannot say that mankind, even having entered the sanctuary of what is held to be sacred, is somehow incapable of error in understanding, venture or even point-of-view. Many would be quick to admit simple shortcomings in ecclesiastical history in an attempt to downplay the big screw-ups. But what about errors which do not appear to be huge, that later staggers the mind? A short look at religious history, even in the traditions to which we are accustomed, should erase any confidence that we    are unquestionably correct in all things, even most things. The core points in our understanding are probably solid; we have sizable amounts of evidence and support for these [the nature of Christ, the authenticity of the Bible and so forth]. Yet, there remain large points Christians hold to such as: various types of Millennialism just as one example, that have much less authorization to assure us of true correctness. Even so, huge numbers of people unequivocally subscribe to these ideas without question.

It is areas such as these where we should be exceptionally careful and readily willing to reconsider. That which mankind as a whole, saved or unsaved, knows for a fact; is minuscule compared to that which even the most brilliant among us do not know. Therefore, only fools can afford to be close-minded and declare that they are fully correct on a large quantity of concepts and perspectives. The discussion of origins is one such area to which more is unknown than we will ever “know” for sure. Therefore, we need to illustrate being readily willing to reconsider matters, because there are more of them than we think.

Here are a few questions to think about:

1. Why do Christians feel the need to justify/prove their belief in scientific terms?
2. Does God require people to understand everything about Him or His word to initially commit themselves to His way and/or to stay committed?
3. Are followers of Christ disenfranchised by the content, approach or essence of the Evolutionist?
4. What would happen if Christ’s followers generally did not engage the Evolutionist according to their foolishness?
5. What purpose does it serve to engage the discussion of the Evolutionist from within the terms and mindset they use?
6. What are the real issues in the Evolution/Creation debate?

These questions are tremendous for sure. For many they’ll stir anger, while others will be baffled. In addition, there are lots of church people who just don’t want to think about this stuff. One can only question why. If there is potential error or if we could be deceiving ourselves, what does it hurt to dig a little deeper? The point of posing such questions is to lead us to still more questions that will uncover the real issues at play. Let’s start with the first one and work it out from there.

Question 1
Why do Christians feel the need to justify/prove their belief in scientific terms?

Creationism is just one branch of Christian apologetics, just as Evolution is one branch of Atheistic apologetics. Creationism is to the religious what Evolution is to the anti-religious. Both are reactions to the other. Neither justifies nor proves anything other than, two groups will air their philosophical wares in direct reaction to one another. This is done in order to attract anyone foolish enough to take part in the insignificance and sophism of religion and anti-religion.

Conservative religious people involved in kingdom-of-the-world-thinking often believe that their enemies are the liberals, the gay activist, the ACLU, the pro-choice advocates, the Evolutionists, and so on…Demonizing one’s enemies is a part of the tit-for-tat game of Babylon, for only by doing so do we justify our animosity, if not violence, towards them. What we have here [the religious right and apologetics] is [a] religious version of the kingdom of the world. (emphasis and inclusions are mine for clarity)

– Dr. Greg Boyd –
Myth of a Christian Nation, pg. 48

It is thought that Christians need to defend the Gospel by using apologetics. This seems wise; however, how does this square with the Bible telling us that the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing (2 Cor. 4:3). Therefore, if a person/culture is purposely darkened in their minds, then how can we appeal to them even if we contextualize our appeal within their logic? We are to share the Gospel there is no question. Yet, if people are not interested and they readily hold to something as foolish as Evolution to justify their avoidance of God, why do we pursue them? Answering a fool according to his foolishness can many times be a diluting venture (Prov. 26:4).

What happens to our relationship with God in the process of contextualizing it in terms and concepts that the scientific minded will allow themselves to agree with? Are Christians somehow isolated by their beliefs [God’s account of “the beginning” in Genesis]? Are they so uncomfortable with it just as God put it, that they would redefine it into more acceptable language and concepts [Creationism/intelligent design] so as to fit in with the discussions of society allegedly to get non-believing people to see believing God is not really blind faith?

If there is no accommodation [to the culture] Christianity is unintelligible and cannot be spread; if there is too much accommodation it will be spread, but will no longer be Christian.

– Roland H. Bainton –

What if Christians did not attempt describing their beliefs in scientific terms? Would they loose adherence, or voice in the market place of ideas? The tendency to contextualize our ideas in this way seems to be more of an attempt to fit in and be accepted by the culture around us than any else. Thus, security and place in society seems to be more of a drive behind Creationism than it ever would be a means to get people into relationship with God. Look at output from the circles that are doing this type of teaching [Creationism/Apologetics]. The value of a an approach will be verified by its product, if we aren’t looking here then we are selling ourselves short and possibly accepting the traditions of men as being the truth of God.

Our best minds were enlisted in the Constantinian enterprise of making faith credible to the powers that be so that Christians might now have a share in those powers [of the state].  After all, we would never be culturally significant if we Christians talked a language unintelligible to the Empire.  Apologetics is based on the political assumption that Christians somehow have a stake in transforming our ecclesial claims into intellectual assumptions that will enable us to be faithful to Christ while still participating in the political structures of a world that does not know Christ.

– Stanley Hauerwas –
Resident Aliens, pg. 22

I fail to see the justification for accepting as legitimate all the questions about the revelation, more or less, brought up from different points of view, while at the same time refusing to question those systems, methods, and conclusions from the point of view of revelation.

– Jacques Ellul –
Hope In A Time of Abandonment, pg. 145

Engaging the Evolutionist on their terms only expands in direct relationship to the antithesis of Evolution, not because of an intrinsic necessity or purpose of making “Creationism” known or available to the needy masses. More directly, if there weren’t Evolutionists trying to negate, what was formerly culturally accepted concerning the Bible, there would be no “Creationist” apologetics. For centuries, Christian’s believed the Bible because it was God’s word. They didn’t believe the Bible because they could prove it in contrast to some sarcastic sophist using Evolution to try and refute it.  Thus, Creationism is only the synthesis product of a dialectic process.*

*Note: Dialectics is an observable process by which a thesis is changed to a synthesis when an antithesis has been brought against it. To put it in plain terms: the acceptance of God’s explanation of origins (the thesis) becomes modified to a philosophical/scientific pursuit [to try and make mystery acceptable to unregenerate men and those who might listen to them] (a synthesis) when an alternate belief was foisted on the world’s population (the antithesis). This process is only based on the presupposition that Christians and their beliefs should be accepted in society and that Christians are trying to maintain this power-over* position. The fact that the antithesis [Evolution] has the potential to fuel persecution and harm makes the threat posed by Evolution supposedly worthy of engagement. However, when we change the simple explanations of God for complex arguments that will satiate man’s desire to seem high-minded we fail to be saying the same things as God and we confirm men in their endless pursuit of foolishness.

*Note: This “Power-Over” concept was elaborated on by Dr. Greg Boyd in his new book, The Myth of a Christian Nation. Boyd describes a mindset where Christians are dominant in society as a means of maintaining control for themselves. He contrasts this with what was evident of Christ, “Power-Under” expression that describes Christ’s servanthood: a vulnerable position.

It does not appear as though the higher-thinkers behind the Creationist movement understand the craft and ploys of the enemy. They seem to be totally ignorant of his schemes. I am almost sure God is flummoxing from the Evolutionist onslaught, not really. So, if God is not worried about the threat of physical violence, isolation and cultural insignificance that will come as a part of Evolution becoming more dominate and enmeshed in society, and if He did not answer some foolish questions by making His words foolish enough for the fools to accept, why should we? After all, He only spoke for those who had ears to hear with, not those who had ears but refused to understand what He was saying, because they didn’t want to. Are we here to serve like Christ or to dominate for our own purposes like religion?

Question 2
Does God require people to understand everything about Him or His word to initially commit themselves to His way and/or to stay committed?

Many Christians bemoan the complexity that Evolutionary thinking adds to the process of winning souls. I have heard numerous; talk-show hosts, pastors and teachers say that having “Creationism” as a commonly understood idea in society makes the job       of evangelism easier.* What hogwash! If the unregenerate will accept a scien-tific/philosophical explanation of origins on the basis that it makes sense to their darkened mind, of what need is there for the gospel that Christ taught; a stumbling block and foolishness to the “wise” and “learned?” Just what perspective would this kind of “convert” be converting to, if they already accept a rendition of God’s perspective, e.g. Creationism?

It is a major error to even think finite man can start to explain/understand God in His infiniteness. It is even a bigger error to think that the darkened mind of the unregenerate would be able to or should even allowed to think they understand God. If man thinks, he can explain the infinite God; though he is only finite, then God isn’t God anymore; man becomes god in that process. The apologetic mind places too much emphasis on knowledge and knowing about “God” and argumentation rather than knowing God. Those who are in a vital relationship with God are not likely to stray, fall or walk a way from Him. Those who are in an actual relationship with God will be so dynamic in their work, ministry and conversation that the atheist sophist will not be able to contend with that kind of reality. Basically, the apologist is promoting religion and a belief system rather than relationship with the Almighty.

*Note: See my interview with Bob Dutko of WMUZ in Detroit, Michigan @ http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/book/bdutkointerview.html. This is just one way in which I can document the idea that Christians think that creationism being accepted and prevalent in society makes it easier to witness and Evolution makes it more difficult.

Question 3
Are followers of Christ disenfranchised by the content, approach or essence of the Evolutionist?

If there was any disenfranchisement for Christians due to the content or approach of the Evolutionist it is because of two factors: the weakened position of the Christian by trying to protect the security of a temporal belonging and being confined to somebody else’s argument because the power of a transformed life does not exist within a belief system. Let me explain further.

If there is only one way to deal with a problem, then when we are faced with that problem we are limited to the single solution by which the problem is said to be dealt with successfully. Take for instance a hole in a boat. The only way the hole can be surely fixed is to patch it from the outside. Many problems are like this [having one solution] yet many are not. What do I mean by this? Sometimes we limit ourselves either by “conventional wisdom” or by lack of creativity. Concerning the problem of what the Evolutionist mindset will do to society; traditional wisdom says that Christians should fight back point-for-point, never mind what the scriptures say, (2 Cor. 10:4*, Eph. 6:12). However, combating Evolution from within its mindset or approach will not do what the Creationists think it will.

*Note: This text is commonly misunderstood because of the verse that follows it and a concept based from it was catalyzed and embellished by the Constantinian change in the church in 325AD. Since Constantine, the church has seen itself as the establishment or the force in society that maintains morality, justice and every good thing. Thus, the organized church has seen its job in a physical here-and-now sense as the force of God for maintaining these aspects in whatever society it has found itself. The “church” has become very procrustean in this aspect to the point of committing atrocities equal to Hitler’s holocaust. Thus, belief is just a matter of religion and mental assent, not the co-existive relational reality which Jesus, Paul and the early church gave evidence of. Thus, 2 Corinthians 10:4 is shoveled under the rug in favor of verse 5 which has been the proof text for religious domination and many of the “churches” worst blunders for more than a millennia.

Since the Evolutionist’s theories are subjective and based on anti-god, the speculations are endless. To engage such a pig-in-a-poke discussion is to become the same. We are chasing shadows and vapors; engaging Evolution is a ruse! The question we should ask ourselves is; why we would engage an enemy that is speculative and nebulous, in other words it’s not concrete or substantive? If we answer this question we will find out that our motive isn’t so much to make it easy to witness, or that we are protecting people from being inoculated against God by foolish theories or that we are standing up for truth. The fact is that the Christians’ dominance in western society is threatened and this is the real motive that drives the “culture wars,” and the “belief/ideas wars.”

Several things disenfranchise Christians and the reaction to the “attack of Evolution” merely reveals this to be true. Evolution is not a literal danger as in an army parked outside your gate, which is ready to storm the doors; annihilating all behind it as in the siege of Jerusalem… Christians are disenfranchised in that they have no means to incarnate the truth of God in today’s living because what they subscribe to is mainly belief, not the relationship, which ironically they commonly tout. Relationship, and that which comes out of it, will out-strip theories and postulations any day! Christians are disenfranchised by their own hollowness and ineptness, not by the speculations and ravings of darkened minds. Culturally, Christians have a form of godliness but they deny its power (2 Tim. 3:5).

We have to be careful about which analysis to which we will subscribe. Will we pay attention to the creationist/religionist analysis that is worried about their own importance and place in a temporal society; trying to maintain it through domination, rational ideas, court appeals and political maneuvering? Or, will we listen to the prophetic analysis that calls the church to be an eternal alternative in the context of the temporal situation of the societies of men, co-existing with them as ambassadors?

Question 4
What would happen if Christ’s followers generally did not engage the Evolutionist according to their foolishness?

It is thought that Evolution will be society’s undoing. This idea gives us a clue as to the real motives of the Creationist apologetics. Will this undoing really happen, and what will happen to the Christian in this situation? I would agree with the Creationist that Evolution has had a hugely negative effect on society; people have become animal like since the theory has been widely taught… I would also agree that Evolutionist thought will eventually cause great persecution upon the religious as well as many faithful followers of Christ.* However, I don’t think this is a bad thing. The society that totally embraces Evolution and the natural extremes that will come along because of it, will be in stark contrast to the true followers of Christ sprinkled around in their midst. As the dark becomes darker, the light becomes more evident. Striking a lighter will not be noticed in broad daylight, but strike that same lighter in a pitch black cave 300 feet underground in a group of people and it will not be unnoticed.

Note: The reasons for this differentiation [religious and faithful follower of Christ] are manifold. Persecution will come mainly from the foolishness and hypocrisy of Christians, which parade as followers of Christ. Society is growing sick of their domination, whining and control based from religious ideas. Christians fail to see that they are controlling and that they are trying to hold on to cultural dominance, for their own purposes and with esoteric ideas, in a culture that has had enough of their headtrip. Christians have made God odious to the common man with all their shenanigans. The follower of Christ will bear the guff of a society that is sick of “the Christian.” Christians are quickly digging their own grave. In addition, God wants to purify His bride and this only happens as persecution separates the false from the real.

The majority of Christendom feels that Evolution is an affront that cannot go unchallenged. Those who feel this way would also go chasing after an enemy just to find themselves in an ambush that was set for them ahead of time. The thought of a “christian” not engaging the Evolutionist is tantamount to asking a hunting dog not to give chase to an animal while out on a hunt. We’ve got the game wrong and we do not have Christ as an example. We need to become followers of Christ, instead of being Christians. There is a huge difference.

Christ sometimes did not answer a question leveled by the antagonists of His day. Evolutionists are generally antagonists, but there is generally no reason to engage them broad-based as the Creationist advocate. I wonder if Jesus was a Creationist? The Evolutionists’ arguments are hollow and subjective. They question just to find cause to dismiss God or base their hatred of Him. Their whole agenda is reactionary. Jesus would sometimes ask His own questions in response to the antagonist, and sometimes He would say nothing. His questions exposed their motives and prejudice and His silence enraged them because Christ’s silence did not give them satisfaction. Yet, either response was an action of power, security and purpose beyond survival and the prestige of belonging to the establishment. If Christians would become followers of Christ and tend to their business and realize that their place in society is that of an ambassador [not belonging], they would be able to incarnate truth the way Jesus did: in power and by the direction and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Answering a fool according to his folly, merely clouds the situation, the antagonist is made to feel engaged and important in his absurdity. He is given a place to stand just by the fact that his argument has been engaged. If truth is not being used to support the temporal establishments of men that are weak to ideas and being taken in and taken over throughout the centuries, then it will demonstrate the eternalness of the Kingdom to which we belong as followers of Christ. It will also demonstrate that ideas and mere men cannot weaken the Kingdom, or takeover, because it is outside of their control. The Kingdom of God does not belong to men; it belongs to God Himself and the followers of His Son. Therefore, we have a secure position from which to stand, minister and represent truth. The world [the collective of non-believers] or the anti-god antagonist cannot commandeer what they do not know. Therefore, if we play our game the right way the world cannot do much more than legitimize our way by attacking us because our alternative is a danger to their social order and control; the tables will be turned. Evolution is merely an antithesis; it is not an outright all out attack. Thus, Evolution is more of a danger for us when we engage it, than it is just because the idea exists.

Question 5
What purpose does it serve to engage the discussion of the Evolutionist from within the terms and mindset they use?

If we go to the local gambling joint [I am not advocating that we should, I am just using it as an illustration] and play their games according to their rules, we will loose more times than we ever win. However, if we “cheat” [I am not advocating this either just using it to make a point] or introduce some other dynamic into the game that they had not planned into their odds, we will win more. We are in a sinful world order that is passing away, therefore the world’s system is in greater danger of “loosing,” that is to say insecure, when we introduce God’s truth into their game by way of incarnating truth in their realm rather than trying to gain power in their system and dominate for our good purposes. Incarnation is a dynamic that comes from beyond us. The establishment of the world is temporal and weakened by the fluidity of human’s sin and the constant change of power being gained then lost to another. Therefore, we are more than conquerors through Christ, not through the world’s system.

The Evolutionist owns the language of the argument of origins because the society lives and thinks in scientific concepts with the idea that everything should be explainable. Evolution is a darkened idea that speaks to a society and world that is darkened. Evolutionist also control most of the venues from which the theory is commonly foisted. Society and its institutions are temporal so trying to get on top of their establishment and dominate it for our own purposes is a reductionist proposition and it is selfish. Engaging Evolution is also the way to nullify our Kingdom and make it confused with the here-and-now thinking of religion. In all the years, which Creationists have tried to engage the Evolutionists within their thinking, Christian have made very little impact at the street level. Evolution is still taught and infused in the day-to-day life of society. Society has become more animalistic in the mean time while Creationists fight for air time and continue to give less and less of a representation of truth and the Kingdom of God. God’s supposed believers are trying to engage a ridiculous argument in order to maintain control of a temporal situation so that they can continue to be comfortable in a world that is going to hell fast.

One weakness in the activities of Christians is that they tend to have very few different responses to any number of various attacks, challenges or comparisons that come against them. This is one reason for disenfranchisement. People look at Paul on Mars Hill and use this text and a couple others as proof texts to respond in with “apologetics” to any and all situations that challenge the beliefs of Christians in society. Apologetics has become over-rated and too commonplace. Many do not understand that Paul’s attempt to “philosophize” with the people at Athens was merely an attempt to contextualize his message in a way they might understand if they were inclined to. If they didn’t respond, he did not keep it up. Apologetics has gone from being a card that can be played to being the only card that religious people have to play. Paul tried apologetics a few different times for different reasons and then moved on to other outreaches. Since the change brought by Constantine, where the church became part of the State [the establishment] now this former approach of contextualization of the message has of Christ become a defense technique to dominate and maintain a hold on society.

If Evolution is false then prove it by applying God’s truth in concrete ways so that God’s way cannot be denied. Instead of looking at the past, trying to figure different ways to interpret “finds” so that Creationist thought is plausible to those who would normally fall for the ravings of Evolutionary theory, God’s truth should be applied to things going from now into the future. We should produce that which is superior in other areas to what Evolutionists try to develop based from their silly theories. When ideas based on God’s truth prove to be superior to ideas based on anti-god theories, this will disenfranchise the Evolutionist because their argument will not be the center of attention. We can argue about things that were in the past, where no one can say for sure about any of it because we weren’t there, but no one can argue with the facts of what is in front of them as a direct result of applying God’s truth unless they are idiots.

Question 6
What are the real issues in the Evolution/Creation debate?

The real issue concerning the Creation/Evolution debate is; just how stupid and temporal minded Christians are? They engage an argument that defies everything that we know of for sure in scripture. Evolution in no way erases or challenges scripture. Another issue is the argument shows that Christians are merely engaged in trying to maintain control of thought in society so that it will continue to be a nice place for us to hang our hats until Christ comes back. Still a third issue is the argument shows that Christians would rather use rational concepts which make sense to the darkened mind of unregenerate men than to show the world truth by its employ in the life of the believer. Fourthly, the argument shows that Christians are insecure in their dependence on being accepted in society and that this is the main reason that they engage the Evolutionist.

Evolution is the opiate of the Atheist masses. Evolution cannot make a sinner worse than he already is. If it is accepted and employed in society it can only make life harder in some ways for the so-called “Christian” and the follower of Christ. This is hardly a reason to combat Evolution; did Christ promise that following Him would be a bed of roses? Since this life is all that the Atheist/Evolutionist has (so they think) let them have their opiate, if it will make their life of hating or avoiding God easier. Proverbs 31:6-7 encourages us to, “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”

The follower of Christ should welcome Evolution as a truth. Unregenerate man is little short of an animal and society’s acceptance of Evolution has proven that unregenerate man is increasingly animalistic. Conversely, the believer can only be what human always were intended to be. The atheist should be encouraged to spout folly and kick against the goads. He will find his error quickly if he is allowed to. But if we as believers are dependant on society liking us and employing a good measure of our understanding in their way of living, the difference between those who follow God and those who play under a façade of religious beliefs will be much less obvious. Many in the world will think that believing in a few points based on Biblical truth is; the way, the truth and the life. In going along with the charade of engaging the Evolutionist, we will confuse many and we will destroy the representation of the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men.

The believer who puts great emphasis on “proving” or “legitimizing” their belief in terms the non-believer will accept, will be found to be as silly as the believer who charts and re-charts the return Christ only to be found false every time. Apologetics is the tool one must succumb to using when the power of a changed life is not evident, prevalent or available. Nothing demonstrates veracity and truth better than demonstratable, quantifiable, and obvious change: he used to be an abuser now he is not, he used to hate people no he demonstrates love for everybody; he was blind yet now he sees… The apologetic believer has to use the crutch of sophist argumentation because they have no other “currency” which the world recognizes or accepts.

Conclusion:

Creationism and Apologetics have become hallmarks of establishment thinking in the organized church, particularly in America. In order to be a Creationist one either has to be diluted into thinking they must make it easy for non-believers to believe or they are merely interested in maintaining the lofty place in human society of being accepted because their view is just as believable as the nay Sayers. What other conclusion is more plausible when all the questions concerning motives have been asked?

Apologetics may have some use in certain situations but it has become far overplayed. Instead of being a contextualization technique, apologetics has become a full-court-press approach to legitimize the mysteries of God to men with darkened minds who don’t necessarily want to know anything about God at all. Apologetics works great as a once-in-a-while tool, when Christ was unknown to the vast majority of the world. However, since Christ, or rather a misrepresented concept of Him, has become so commonplace; apologetics is not the tool we should be using. Our motives are incorrect [trying to stay on top of the establishment] and we are not as concerned with people coming into a right relationship with God, because we ourselves are more concentrated on other things than knowing God.

The power of a changed life is to discussions of truth the same thing as a Royal Flush is to poker. There is no way to beat either. Yet, a changed life, as in what we see in the gospels or New Testament, is about as common today in church people’s lives as a Royal Flush is in poker. It needn’t be this way because God says we are a new creation, old things have passed away (2 Cor. 5:17). If we are a new creation in Christ then where can it be seen in the organized cult of “church” today? We ought to set our own house in order before we go out and try to get non-believers to go along with ideas that either we don’t fully apply or believe or that can only be seen by a mind that has been opened by God.

We need to get away from motives based in maintaining a hold on society [as if to make it Christian by laws, education, social order or perspective] and get into the humble position of not belonging [being a sojourner, resident alien or an outsider] so that we can be ambassadors. Ambassadorship, which Paul refers to twice in the New Testament (2 Cor. 5:20 and Eph. 6:20), entails not belonging to the group we are representing our realm to.* The trouble with Christians is that they fail to see the Kingdom, which Christ taught about as a reality in their lives. It is something which is thought that will come, yet Jesus said in Luke 17:21 that the Kingdom of God is here, right now! The full measure of the Kingdom of God will come to pass in the future for sure, but it is to be a reality in our lives daily, which has impact in our outreach and interaction with the world.

*Note: Paul is not alone in this imagery; as Peter wrote of being a Holy Nation (I Peter 2:9) and Christ also spoke of being a Nation unto God (Matt. 21:43). In addition, Christ spoke of the Kingdom of God (Heaven) some 90 times. This “imagery” is not allegorical or non-literal, because it was taken to be quite seditious by the Roman’s.

The Creationist is just a contender for the attentions of men. We can use contextualization when we see that people or a group has openness to our message. However, to try to contextualize our message in the terms of militant unbelievers is merely throwing pearls before swine. Alternatively, the follower of Christ offers to all those who would listen what no man can offer in the temporal here-and-now. However, we should be offering it at the high-cost of loosing everything and to become nothing in the world’s eyes as a follower of Christ, not at the cheap discount rates of mental assent to join a group deluded into thinking they should dominate the rest of the world who does not hold to a religious ideal they have perfected. The Creationist says, ”you can believe in the mysteries of God, because we’ll make it easy.” On the other hand, the Creationtists’ work is also only propping up a hollow easy-believism of the public cult calling itself “church.” In either case, their premise is based on maintaining dominance in society; there is no servanthood humility quotient in their approach.

Were have all the followers of Christ gone? Have we thrown our lot in with the sophists who call themselves Christian? Have we traded our eternal belonging and ambassadorship in the temporal for the insecure temporal preeminence in the world, using lobbying to maintain our control over a system that Christ said was passing away? We can see truth here if we want to or we can go on denying that Creationism/Apologetics/Constantinian Christianity is going the wrong direction. We can’t justify our approach by saying a little good has been done. But what will we tell the master of Luke 19 that we did with the endowment He entrusted to us? Will we continue in putting our “talent” into the earthliness of man’s way of doing things, in his systems and world order or will we go out and creatively put it to use for the greater purpose of the Kingdom, which is supposed to be among men so that it is available to them?

Where is our loyalty: to God’s purposes or to ourselves, our importance, our believability and acceptableness to men with darkened minds, justified in good sounding reasons? Our job is not to do the best we can so that some good may come of it. Our job is to know God and make Him available to men by way of allow Him to be incarnated through our lives. You will notice that Jesus did not debate, the sophists and rhetoricians of His day. He did something more powerful than mere words; He lived what His Father directed Him to do. Nothing trumps God’s way, nor impedes His progress.

• Related Posts
• Bookmark
• Tags