Some Interesting Changes Coming to TWW. Help Wanted!

“My blog is a collection of answers people don’t want to hear to questions they didn’t ask.”  ― Sebastyne Young link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=2941&picture=blog-letters
link

In a few hours, I will post the beginning attempt at a new type of page for TWW. We have spent some time looking over the emails and phone calls that we get. We began to realize that many of the questions and requests for help fall into similar categories. It suddenly dawned on us that we could create permanent pages to deal with these recurrent questions and requests.

The soon to be changing Sidebar at TWW.

Permanent pages to deal with specific scenarios.

These would include, but are not limited to:

1. The issues surrounding membership covenants.
2. The problems with church discipline
3. The issues surrounding affairs in the pulpit.
4. The issues and legalities surrounding child sex abuse and churches.
5. A more carefully defined page outlining our policies regarding moderation.
6. How to leave a church when you know its going to be difficult.
7. How to read a church website in order to get clues about their application of theology, etc.
8,. Signs of an abusive pastor or church.

Permanent pages to deal with certain church situations

Sovereign Grace Churches

Permanent Pages dealing with a particular document/need

1. Prayer Force Leader's Guide/ARC (Assigned overseer)
2. Go Fund Me for specific individuals (Assigned overseer)
3. Prayer requests 

The basic guts of the page

1. A basic overview of the issue.
2. How to solve problems
3. Links to the posts that we, and others, have written on the subject
4. Comments, for now, will be allowed.

Needed: Overseers of the pages 

-Each page will be overseen by an individual or a group of individual who will alert us to any important issues in the comment section.
-If you are interested, please send us an email with "overseers" in the subject line and tell us of your interest.
-The oversight would involve daily checking your page and alerting us to issues.
-I have asked a couple of individuals who already who have demonstrated a particular bent for the subject at hand
-Yes, the title is tongue in cheek and a reference to the ARC overseers.

It is our hope that these pages will help folks and cut down on people asking some of the same questions. The regular posts will continue as before.

Please let us know if you would like to help or if you have some suggestions.

Comments

Some Interesting Changes Coming to TWW. Help Wanted! — 120 Comments

  1. Edward wrote:

    @ Velour:
    “Page Volunteer” is too ostentatiously humble- I prefer “Page Potentate”

    Edward,

    You can be fast-tracked to a position as an elder at my ex-church.

    Signed,

    Velour the humble Volunteer,
    Excommunicated by The Potentates

  2. Can we nominate people?

    I nominate Gram3, Bill M. and Law Prof on issues regarding Church Membership Covenants.

  3. “My blog is a collection of answers people don’t want to hear to questions they didn’t ask.”

    That describes my (now-deleted) blog perfectly.

    Well, except for the “people” bit.

  4. ishy wrote:

    I think we should be elders. Just because it would annoy people.

    Would it ever, sister.

    Elder Velour.

  5. I like the name page pontiff, but I may have eaten too much Halloween candy! And I also like the idea of nominating people.

    As for moderation, it was fun to actually go into moderation recently due to using a bodily function word.

  6. ishy wrote:

    I think we should be elders. Just because it would annoy people.

    In that case, Page Pastors, Page Prophets, Page Apostles…….

  7. Dee and Deb,

    I just used the California State Bar (a division of the California Supreme Court’s website) to do a nation-wide search for a licensed attorney anywhere in the U.S. by the name of Brooks Crowell.

    There is NO such licensed attorney ANYWHERE in the United States, living or dead, ever issued a law license…anywhere.

    So there. I’m calling steer manure on B.C.

    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/AdvancedSearch?LastNameOption=e&LastName=crowell&FirstNameOption=b&FirstName=brooks&MiddleNameOption=b&MiddleName=&FirmNameOption=b&FirmName=&CityOption=b&City=&State=&Zip=&District=&County=&LegalSpecialty=&LanguageSpoken=&x=68&y=13#searchlink

  8. Shout out to Burke Crowell if you’re reading.

    I couldn’t find you on LinkedIn or your law license.

    Please post:

    a) your law license
    b) the state that issued your law license,
    and
    c) your LinkedIn profile.

    I am trying to vet you. I work in law in California.

    LawProf could you please give an assist, and others here, in trying to find information on one “Brook Crowell” at the top of the page here that Dee is asking about.

  9. Dee,

    The State Bar of California (a division of the California Supreme Court) has a database with all licensed attorneys in the United States.

    There is NO attorney by the last name of Crowell in TN. I have tried searching by both first and last name.

    Here’s what the California State Bar’s website said:

    “Your search returned no results. Try broadening your search by using less criteria, or by using the “sounds like” operators.”

  10. @ Muff Potter:
    And top of Reformation Day to you as well!

    “Pope Francis has taken part in events to commemorate the anniversary of the Protestant Reformation during his trip to Sweden.
    The Pope appealed to Catholics and Lutherans to “mend” history and look with honesty at the past, “recognising error and seeking forgiveness”.
    By tradition, on 31 October 1517 the German theologian Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of a church.
    The papal visit kicks off a year of events to mark the quincentenary.”
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37827736

  11. Ruth Tucker wrote:

    Dr. Ruth, here. Can I have a sidebar? Maybe stir up a little excitement around here.

    Would you be interested in being the potentate of a domestic abuse page?

  12. @ Velour:
    I found out just a shot time ago he was posing as an attorney to strike fear into the heart of this blogger. Bless his heart-I knew it wasn’t true when he misused the terms slander and defamation and couldn’t define it.

  13. dee wrote:

    @ Former CLCer:
    I go into moderation at least twice a day-on my own blog!!!!

    this somehow makes me feel better
    (sorry, LOL)

  14. dee wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I found out just a shot time ago he was posing as an attorney to strike fear into the heart of this blogger. Bless his heart-I knew it wasn’t true when he misused the terms slander and defamation and couldn’t define it.

    OK, well that’s a felony crime in TN. to hold oneself out as an attorney.

    “T. C. A. § 23-3-108. Misrepresentation; crimes and offenses
    (a) It is unlawful for any person, either directly or indirectly, falsely to advertise the person as, or
    hold the person out as, a lawyer.
    (b) A violation of this section is a Class E felony”

    http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/docs/myers-unauthorized_practice_of_law_in_tn-3-20-2015.pdf

    I did send a private message to a man in TN. on Facebook and I asked him if he knew of anyone with his identical name who was a licensed attorney because a nation-wide search showed no one living or dead.

  15. I got one…

    From time to time, folk ask about how to get a comment to appear in bold, etc.

    You could get someone who knows how to get angular brackets to appear in a comment, e.g. <i>…</i>, to compile a list and put it on a wee “tech help” page.

  16. Though apparently <span> tags don’t work. (They generally don’t unless you have owner super-powers.)

  17. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    You could get someone who knows how to get angular brackets to appear in a comment, e.g. <i>…</i>, to compile a list and put it on a wee “tech help” page.

    But I don’t know where you’d find such a
















                person.

  18. Let me know if you need content help too. 😀

    Definitely a 9Marx category, a Calvinism category, a Complementarianism category, a “How to spot a subtle takeover of your church” article, a “Primer on Biblical Authority” article….and that’s just off the top of my head.

  19. dee wrote:

    The Pope appealed to Catholics and Lutherans to “mend” history and look with honesty at the past, “recognising error and seeking forgiveness”.

    I knew there was something I always liked about that guy (Francis)! It’s sad that there’s no shortage of haters out there who can always justify their hatred with Scripture.

  20. Velour/Siteseer

    The whole thing with Brooks is now over. I had another family member contact me and apologize.

  21. dee wrote:

    Velour/Siteseer
    The whole thing with Brooks is now over. I had another family member contact me and apologize.

    Good.

  22. So the men can be page pastors and the women can be page directors as long as everyone submits to the authority the guy behind the curtain?

  23. dee wrote:

    I found out just a shot time ago he was posing as an attorney to strike fear into the heart of this blogger. Bless his heart-I knew it wasn’t true when he misused the terms slander and defamation and couldn’t define it.

    Is this the same Brook Crowell, of the Tennessee State Library?

  24. Nancy2 wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I found out just a shot time ago he was posing as an attorney to strike fear into the heart of this blogger. Bless his heart-I knew it wasn’t true when he misused the terms slander and defamation and couldn’t define it.
    Is this the same Brook Crowell, of the Tennessee State Library?

    I was wondering that.

  25. I would like to help.
    New to “The Wartburg Watch”.
    Have in the last 3 weeks left a church because of Reformed Calvinist takeover from the pulpit. A real “Covert” operational happening over three years.

    Please let me know what you would like from me.
    Tools to Fight Back would be great, need some guidance from you.
    Maybe a “Think Tanks Solution”, groups working together to write or do sections of what you want?
    Thanks,
    Gary

  26. Gary C. Lewis wrote:

    I would like to help.
    New to “The Wartburg Watch”.
    Have in the last 3 weeks left a church because of Reformed Calvinist takeover from the pulpit. A real “Covert” operational happening over three years.
    Please let me know what you would like from me.
    Tools to Fight Back would be great, need some guidance from you.
    Maybe a “Think Tanks Solution”, groups working together to write or do sections of what you want?
    Thanks,
    Gary

    Gary, I’m so sorry. 🙁 Please know you’re not alone, and you’ll find many compatriots here. Feel free to reach out to Dee & Deb via email, and offer to share your story. **They. Will. Listen.**

  27. @ Gary C. Lewis:

    Hi Gary,

    Welcome to The Wartburg Watch.

    I am so sorry to hear about the stealth takeover of your church.

    I was excommunicated from mine on a trumped up charge (thinking/dissent=kicked out),
    like the doctor in his 70’s before me, and the middle-aged woman in finance before the doctor. I have never seen such sweet, good, Christians treated with such vileness.

    It’s been 2-years since my excommunication/shunning. I lost all of my friends of 8+ years.
    I didn’t get one Christmas card. My mail box used to be full of them. It was very odd.
    I’ve now started blogging about my former church, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley.

    https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/08/25/first-blog-post/

    I’ve learned a lot along the way. About Membership Covenants. Patriarchy. Authoritarianism in churches. The spread of NeoCalvinism. Thought Reform techniques used to control people.
    It’s been eye-opening and healing.

    Keeping you in prayer,

    Velour in California

  28. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I got one…
    From time to time, folk ask about how to get a comment to appear in bold, etc.
    You could get someone who knows how to get angular brackets to appear in a comment, e.g. , to compile a list and put it on a wee “tech help” page.

    I previously saved the instructions for how to do this at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/TV/ETC. tab.

  29. Can we please have a comedy page with Old Nick himself (yes you, Nick Bulbeck) as the Head of Hilarity?

  30. I’d be more than happy to chair a contingent of dissidents, heretics, bohemians, and degenerates here at TWW.

  31. Muff Potter wrote:

    I’d be more than happy to chair a contingent of dissidents, heretics, bohemians, and degenerates here at TWW.

    Er – that would be TWW.

  32. Beakerj wrote:

    Can we please have a comedy page with Old Nick himself (yes you, Nick Bulbeck) as the Head of Hilarity?

    Well, that’s a kind thought, Beaks; but TBH I’m rather trying to re-invent myself as a serious actor these days.

  33. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Well, that’s a kind thought, Beaks; but TBH I’m rather trying to re-invent myself as a serious actor these days.

    Well, then, I would hope you would consider being a Flintstone Doctrine page overseer. You clearly have the science background for such an undertaking and it would likely take someone with your sense of humor to persist in such an endeavor.

  34. @ OldJohnJ:

    Thankyou for your confidence (as you, too, have the science background) – oddly enough, I have recently come at least temporarily to the conclusion that YEC and OEC are rather like general relativity and quantum theory. In the sense that, any attempt to reconcile the two is doomed to crash and burn in the proverbial divide-by-zero.

  35. @ OldJohnJ:

    P.S. I’ve been pondering the Flat Earth Society recently (not sure why – probably an ADHD thing). So, although I don’t doubt that a lot of ostensibly flat-earth material is just the result of Poe-ists having a laugh (or else, trying to point out how convincing pseudoscience can be, in order to provoke thought), there really are those who believe the earth is flat, and that round earthists are a conspiracy.

    Now, supposing we’re convinced the world is flat, with a big wall at the edge, what’s the one thing any rational person would want to know?

    I’m idly curious as to whether you’ve come across any flat-earth-sponsored expeditions to the edge of the earth to find out what’s beyond it. Because I haven’t…

  36. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    GR and QM appear to be as immiscible as OEC and YEC in spite of the very substantial efforts of the “String Theory” advocates.

    RE your PS on the second post: no

  37. OldJohnJ wrote:

    GR and QM appear to be as immiscible as OEC and YEC in spite of the very substantial efforts of the “String Theory” advocates.

    It’s probably not a good comparison. GR and QM both have good science behind them. Most OEC proponents seem to want to follow good science as well. But the YECs don’t trust any science that disagrees with their presuppositions, which rules out most modern science. I’ve tried to follow their logic, but “scientists” like Ken Ham make Piper look like a seasoned sage.

    As for flatness, is it ok to believe in a flat universe?

  38. Ken F wrote:

    It’s probably not a good comparison.

    Well, no; TBH, it’s not. What I was really getting at is that I have temporarily abandoned hope that one can have an edifying discussion between YEC-ers and OEC-ers. The problem is twofold:
     YEC-ers are wilfully ignorant of demonstrable empirical fact;
     OEC-ers are wilfully rebellious and have rejected the Word of God

    OK: so, in any given case, neither of those is likely to be true. But… that’s the standard reductio ad hitlerum of OEC vs YEC and it rears its ugly head very early in just about every YE vs OE fight I’ve ever seen.

    Can such a discussion actually happen, such that the end result is love, from a pure heart, a clear conscience and a sincere faith? I’m sure it can – with God, all things are possible. It’s simply that I have insufficient faith, at the moment, to be able to mediate it.

    🙁

  39. P.S. Spacetime curvature isn’t my subject, so I’m fine with a flat universe BTW.

    IHTIH

  40. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I have recently come at least temporarily to the conclusion that YEC and OEC are rather like general relativity and quantum theory. In the sense that, any attempt to reconcile the two is doomed to crash and burn in the proverbial divide-by-zero.

    well, I like it that people of faith can dialogue about YEC and OEC civilly, and I am an OEC person;
    but the truth is, I’m really stuck back at Creation Ex Nihilo …. can’t sort it out at all, never good, and then I read that the Talmud teaches that ‘the creation of something from nothing is beyond the understanding of the created.’

    maybe the REAL wonder is our tremendous innate need to ponder the vast mysteries of God in spite of our inability to fathom it.
    We say ‘What are we that God is mindful of us?’ but then we must also ask how is it that we finite humans are so infused with a drive for knowledge about the infinite God? Where did THIS come from?

  41. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Can such a discussion actually happen, such that the end result is love, from a pure heart, a clear conscience and a sincere faith? I’m sure it can – with God, all things are possible. It’s simply that I have insufficient faith, at the moment, to be able to mediate it.

    My own experience among Christians is that OECs are more willing to have discussion than YECs. I think this is because of how hard they have been pounded about YEC being an essential belief.

    I like to start with the theological problems and contradictions with YEC because it avoids (at least initially), the scientific aspect. For example, the Bible does not describe the whole world as Eden-like. We know that Eden was described as an amazing garden, but we have no description of the world outside of Eden. All we know is that it was different. That leaves theological room for thorns, animal death, and all the other problems we find in our current world. Also, the Bible does not state when animals started to die. We know that “death through sin” spread to all humans, but the Bible is silent on when animals started to die. Since animals don’t sin, death through sin does not apply to them. And for those who insist on divine election before the foundation of the world, I point out that God could have set up the curse of the fall (decay and corruption) before the foundation of world. Ken Ham insists that animal death before the fall negates the Atonement. But one can then point out that road kill never has and never will atone for sin. The only acceptable sin offerings were made by priests under very specified conditions. There is no Biblical support for the idea that carnivorous activity before the fall would have atoned for anything, unless YECs want to suggest that carnivores would have been performing a priestly role. YEC has no theological weight behind it – just scare tactics.

    Sometimes dialogue like this works. At least it did for me when I believed in YEC.

  42. @ Ken F:

    I kind of feel as though OEC are more willing to discuss than YEC, but I’m wary of believing myself – after all, I would say that, because I’m OEC. But I think you’re right in that there is some asymmetries between the two. OE (without the C) is de facto a required believe among secular scientists; OEC has not, to my knowledge, been pushed as an essential belief among Christians to anything like the extent that YEC has, and is.

    My greatest theological difficulty with YEC isn’t with YEC per se. It’s with the notion that one must interpret the bible literally – because if that’s so, then you’ve got to be extremely careful about picking and choosing which bits of it, if any, you’re not going to take literally. Consider, for instance, the plain, straightforward statements of Jesus that his followers would do the same things as he did as well as greater works (not instead of – so it’s no use saying, well, the “greater works” refers to some form of biblical exposition that Jesus didn’t do). And the plain, straightforward bearing out of this in Acts (with references in the epistles) when the early church did exactly that: performed signs and miracles just like Jesus did.

    I’ve never seen any biblical explanation for cessationism that didn’t rely on heavily-interpreted fragments of scripture. That’s not to say that it “must be wrong”, but it is to say that I cannot see how it can be honestly extracted from the “plain reading of scripture” that gives you YEC. Conclusion: you would expect YEC to be at the heart of whatever signs and wonders movements exist in the church, and certainly, you would not expect cessationism and YEC to go together. They’re not one and the same: I know there are non-cessationist YEC folk. But still.

  43. Ken F wrote:

    As for flatness, is it ok to believe in a flat universe?

    Yes. Flatness in the cosmological sense is the state sitting between an eventually collapsing and an ever expanding universe. Within the errors of measurement experimental data presently shows us in a universe that can be described as (cosmologically) flat.

  44. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I kind of feel as though OEC are more willing to discuss than YEC

    I would be willing to discuss YEC, but I would be mostly be telling someone the reasons I think it’s wrong. So I don’t know what that counts as.

  45. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    TBH I’m rather trying to re-invent myself as a serious actor these days.

    Why would you do something so ridiculous & prone to failure?

  46. dee wrote:

    So, if we did a page on creationism, would you like to be the potentate?

    You’d need to find a YoungJohnJ for the sake of balance.

  47. dee wrote:

    So, if we did a page on creationism, would you like to be the potentate?

    I think YEC and anti-evolution are non issues in the sciences except with fundamentalist Christians and perhaps for their influence policy and education thus I doubt the usefulness of a topics page especially for them. More generally, I feel there are science topics where interactions with religion are likely to grow contentious in the coming years. Two such topics are genetic engineering and the search for extraterrestrial life.

    This is not an answer to you proposal. Perhaps if there is someone well versed in genetic engineering willing to help a joint “potentate” could work.

  48. @ Ken F:

    ‘Twas they whereof I spake upthread.

    It’s hard to know with some of them whether they’re joking or not. I think most of them are…

  49. @ dee:
    @ OldJohnJ:

    I’m with OJJ on the creationismPageThing. OTOH, I think a page dealing with a proper understanding of science:
     what the scientific method is
     what the scientific method IS NOT
     the history of what we now call scientific thought
     the usefulness and importance of evidence

    and overall, a much more informed and unstupid understanding of the relationship between science and Christian faith than “science hates God” and/or “God hates science”.

    In fact, when you think of what is called the cultural mandate given to AdamAndEve:
     Fill the earth…
     Rule over it…
     Subdue it…

    … scientific endeavour has actually had much more of a focus on two of these than institutional Christianity has, for many centuries. As for filling the earth… for a long time, priests were celibate and scientists couldn’t get dates. So it’s kind of a draw there.

  50. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I think a page dealing with a proper understanding of science:

    Nick, I like your approach outlined in this comment. I would add the understanding that science is simply the careful and consistent study of the universe and its inhabitants that God has made.

    Hopefully one of the Deebs can add some substance to our comments.

  51. OldJohnJ wrote:

    I would add the understanding that science is simply the careful and consistent study of the universe and its inhabitants that God has made.

    You have it in a nutshell!

  52. @ dee:
    I think there also needs to be a dictionary, with in-context examples.

    Many of these people have gotten by through redefining and using the same words mainline Christians would use, but they mean something completely different by them. I think it might really help for people to see what these people are saying when they talk.

    I would emphasize that it isn’t all Calvinistas who do this, and I think even some of them don’t know others are redefining these words.

    Examples:

    gospel – Putting churches under the authority of Calvinista leadership
    An interesting fact from Spurgeon’s “Calvinism is the gospel” quote is that in context, he is arguing against this idea. It comes from Calvin’s generation, and is based on the idea that the only way you can really tell someone “Elect” from someone who is not is by their church membership. TGC calls this idea the New Creation or Kingdom of God concept, and many of them argue in favor of it here (even though the writer of the article does not): https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2011/02/22/3-ways-of-defining-the-gospel/

  53. Ken F wrote:

    I like the Reasons to Believe ministry, but I find their site less user friendly.

    Same here. And in my opinion, Francis Collins’ (Biologos Forum in TWW’s blog-roll) site is even less so (user friendly). It’s mostly highly trained specialists talking shop, with very little for reasonably intelligent run-of-the-mill lay people.
    Gonna check out the link you put up though.

  54. I’ve been reading with interest the posts about YEC. This can be such a contentious subject because both sides tend to revert to insulting the other instead of covering the facts. And each side seems to feel threatened by or indignant about the existence of the other.

    I find so much of it confusing.

    I was very interested in science as a child, was sure I would go into some scientific field. I was fascinated with nature and the universe. When I got into high school, it seemed all we learned about was evolution. We did not study much of the creation/natural world, only enough to be used to present evolution as the most important thing to know. I began to feel that a lot of it was propaganda that I was being forced to accept without question (this was long before I was a Christian or believer in God). I lost interest in science and went in other directions. It became dull and lifeless to me. I could not understand why the whole emphasis was on trying to set down dogma on things that we cannot know, and that seemed like it went against the scientific method itself, to me. I wondered why we couldn’t study what is here now, using the scientific method, without it having to turn into a philosophical study of what must have happened at a time we can never know and is beyond our sphere of understanding. The joy of discovery and the wonder of the universe around us were missing.

    I do understand the desire to know and the fascination with the subject but it seems to me that science is used as a stepping off point to philosophy more than an end in itself, and much of it seems like mostly a matter of interpretation? The bones of an unknown creature represent a missing link to the evolutionist and another now extinct created species to the creationist, or the similarity of species represents proof of evolution to the evolutionist but simply a preferred design to the creationist.

    As I said, I lost interest in science and did not continue on in it so I’m sure my words are very ignorant and, indeed, I am reluctant to speak on it because there tends to be so much animosity on the subject and one’s questions are not usually answered, rather one is shamed and made to feel foolish for even questioning.

    As an adult, after I became a Christian, I did do a bit of reading on creationism. There are some in-depth books out there, beyond my level of expertise, that are not YEC so much as a discussion of the evidence for evolution vs the evidence for creation. I did become aware that many scientists believe in God and some form of creation. Some believe in evolution but believe that it was a process guided by God. And it seems like the main area of contention is in the age of the earth? Carbon dating saying one thing while the Bible says something very different. This is so often used, by each side, to force others to choose between only two choices: YEC or atheistic evolution. Personally, I don’t feel like the Bible is so clear on the beginnings as to be used as a literal textbook and I find that evolution doesn’t really answer any of my questions about why we are here or the meaning of life. Is there a place that a person like me fits into the scheme of things?

  55. siteseer wrote:

    This can be such a contentious subject because both sides tend to revert to insulting the other instead of covering the facts. And each side seems to feel threatened by or indignant about the existence of the other.

    I started out YEC but changed to OEC almost 25 years ago because it made more sense. I’ve found that YEC is much more dominated by fear than OEC. I’ve also found that individuals are not that difficult to deal with, but some of the YEC leaders are toxic, such as Ken Ham. For what it’s worth, John MacArthur is a huge YEC proponent, and I find him to be a very toxic teacher. I have yet to come across a toxic OEC proponent, but I am sure they exist. I’ve heard quite a few YECs claim that one cannot be a Christian and believe in an old earth. But I’ve never heard an OEC claim that one cannot be a Christian and still believe in YEC. Of the two sides of the debate I’ve personally found OECs to be much more friendly, open, and balanced than YECs. But that is just my own experience.

    Personally, I don’t feel like the Bible is so clear on the beginnings as to be used as a literal textbook and I find that evolution doesn’t really answer any of my questions about why we are here or the meaning of life. Is there a place that a person like me fits into the scheme of things?

    Yes – it means you are normal. I think the only reason the Bible talks about origins at all is to set the stage for the real discussion, which is relationship with God. It does speak a lot about God making it all, but not in very many ways that we can scientifically validate. On the other hand, the info it does provide can nicely fit with what we know from science.

    Science has not yet been able to account for the origin of the universe. The state of the art is basically appealing to unverifiable theories such as multiverses and imaginary time. Such statements are no better or worse than religious statements because there is no way to verify them.

    Science has not yet been able to hypothesize how life began. Darwinian evolution can make sense once life gets kicked off, but it needs life for it to work. Origin of life researchers keep coming up with dead ends, which is is very interesting in itself.

    OEC has some problems it has not yet been able to overcome, but so has evolutionary theory. Creationists sometimes fall into the “God-of-the-Gap” problem, but science can likewise fall into the “Evolution-of-the-Gap” problem. From what I’ve read, there is quite a lot we still don’t know about how we came to be. The good news is what we believe about origins does not determine whether or now we are “saved” in the Christian sense.

    I’ve found books by Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) to be very helpful because he started off as a scientist. He is not perfect, but he is humble and corrects himself when he is found to be in error.

  56. siteseer wrote:

    Carbon dating saying one thing while the Bible says something very different.

    My grandmother was a Presbyterian, worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers, and she believed in an Old Earth. (She died at 102.) Many of the scientists she worked with were also Christians who believed in an Old Earth.

    It’s my understanding that the Young Earth Creation movement is fairly new and that the literalists push it. They, of course, don’t take in to account the meanings of Hebrew words in the creation story and that one word has a whopping 58 different meanings.

    I also reject the Chicago Statement/Inerrancy of Scripture proponents because they are frankly nuts. They believe that ten local men should take over the local government, they believe in the overthrow of state governments and the U.S. government, they believe in
    a society modeled on a Biblical Patriarchy from the Old Testament (even though we have a new Covenant in the New Testament). The men behind the Chicago Statement also believe in slavery, that non-Christians should be enslaved (I guess anyone not in lock-step with them), and they deny the Holocaust occurred and seem to hate Jews.

    No thanks. I pass on their nonsense. I think they just want to legitimize their otherwise bizarre beliefs.

  57. siteseer wrote:

    Carbon dating saying one thing while the Bible says something very different.

    This is only a reply to a small part of your comment but I hope it proves useful. Radiometric dating (use of radioactivity) is the main technique for establishing the age of many kinds of earthly artifacts. The best reference I have found on the subject is: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html The author, Roger Wiens, is a Christian. Besides carefully explaining this type of dating he also shows where the YEC attempts to discredit it fail.

    The ASA, American Scientific Affiliation, is an organization of science professionals who are willing to affirm a statement of Christian faith as part of joining. I am a member.

    Carbon-14 is only one of many radioactive isotopes used in dating and is primarily for once living biological artifacts. With a half life of about 5700 years its dating range is limited to about 50,000 years ago. While very recent compared to geological times this covers much of human history. Wiens also describes non radiometric dating methods for ages in the range covered by carbon-14.

    My approach to Genesis chapters 1-11 is to consider them as an allegorical account or as parables. I believe God in His wisdom gave the ancients an account they could understand but that would still be meaningful in our current science and technological age.

  58. Velour wrote:

    The men behind the Chicago Statement also believe in slavery, that non-Christians should be enslaved (I guess anyone not in lock-step with them), and they deny the Holocaust occurred and seem to hate Jews.

    goodness! who ARE these men?

  59. Applauding the planned changes.

    I think this would fit under #4. Perhaps this is what you have in mind already.

    The information about services available to the abused which has been listed on the blog (especially, I’m thinking, the comments on the posts about Shauna and Billy) is phenomenal.

    A list of said services and links to the legal helps would be great.

    Also, maybe commenters can look up and add the legal definitions concerning clergy sexual abuse vs consensual affairs with pastors just for their states. Kind of like what Brad Futurist Guy suggested.

    Once the information is available, whoever wants to could start posting the links around on blogs and at msm sites.

    My computer is currently non-functional, so what can I do, ya know? God has obviously pre-programmed, I mean, predestined me to a broken computer from before the foundation of the world. I’ve also been unable to access my email account in like forever. No doubt God’s doing as well. So, that’s that. What good is rebelling against God’s will?

    Naaaahhhhhhh. Jest jokin’ around.

    I’m actually exercising my God-given volition to procrastinate about, I mean, seriously consider all angles, before DECIDING what I want to do about these items.

    I will gladly support all page potentates with info for their pages as well as spreading the links across the land.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Power to the ABUSED!! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

  60. Velour wrote:

    a society modeled on a Biblical Patriarchy from the Old Testament (even though we have a new Covenant in the New Testament). The men behind the Chicago Statement also believe in slavery, that non-Christians should be enslaved (I guess anyone not in lock-step with them), and they deny the Holocaust occurred and seem to hate Jews.

    You’re a great researcher Velour. Can you provide factual data that these guys favor a return to the good old days and would indeed assist in the overthrow of a free society? The best place for the links would be the OD thread I think.
    Thanx.

  61. Muff Potter wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    a society modeled on a Biblical Patriarchy from the Old Testament (even though we have a new Covenant in the New Testament). The men behind the Chicago Statement also believe in slavery, that non-Christians should be enslaved (I guess anyone not in lock-step with them), and they deny the Holocaust occurred and seem to hate Jews.
    You’re a great researcher Velour. Can you provide factual data that these guys favor a return to the good old days and would indeed assist in the overthrow of a free society? The best place for the links would be the OD thread I think.
    Thanx.

    Muff,

    Some months ago when we discussed the Chicago Statement here on the threads (a few people mentioned it — perhaps Gram3, Lydia, and the others who know that kind of thing), I read
    the link first of all on Wikipedia. Then I used the names from that and researched the men behind it, including in my state (California). I found their websites. I was just…horrified.

    I think it’s the whole Dominionism thing that was mentioned. I did not save the links. It’s easy enough to figure out these mens’ thoughts.

  62. @Muff Potter,

    I save really good comments about these things from people here at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/TV/ETC. tab. I will try to copy some over here from Gram3, etc to get you going on the history of these movements.

  63. Christiane wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    The men behind the Chicago Statement also believe in slavery, that non-Christians should be enslaved (I guess anyone not in lock-step with them), and they deny the Holocaust occurred and seem to hate Jews.
    goodness! who ARE these men?

    Nutcases.

  64. Muff,

    I don’t want to derail the thread here/subject matter. So I’m going to move this over to the Open Discussion thread.

  65. @ OldJohnJ:

    Thanks, OldJohnJ, the site looks really good and I appreciate your helpful explanation on the subject.

    Ken F wrote:

    Yes – it means you are normal.

    Thanks, Ken, you are very kind.

    It’s been hard to follow the debate on this subject because I don’t have the technical knowledge to understand the arguments. I figure it isn’t essential to know the details in order to have faith in God and Christ so I haven’t really put it on high priority.

    I heard Henry Morris speak once, back in the 70’s and I found him inspirational, he brought out some pretty neat things from the Genesis account. But I haven’t followed the subject since. I understand people have complaints about Ken Ham, but I have never read him or heard him speak.

    I think the only reason the Bible talks about origins at all is to set the stage for the real discussion, which is relationship with God. It does speak a lot about God making it all, but not in very many ways that we can scientifically validate. On the other hand, the info it does provide can nicely fit with what we know from science.

    That’s a good point. I agree. The Bible just doesn’t give a lot of technical information. I figure that when the Bible uses allegory, though, it must use allegory that holds deeper meaning, like I don’t think it would just use a silly story that misrepresents the reality, I figure it must portray something that is a deeper truth, if that makes sense. I don’t feel like the Bible gives wrong information, either, I’m not aware of it ever stating the earth is flat, for example. And we really are composed of “the dust of the earth” – the elements. And our bodies do return to those elements after death.

    There are a few examples that can be taken as inaccurate, but I think they are more like figures of speech, based on our perspective. We all still refer to the sun “coming up” or “going down,” for instance, even though we know it is the earth that is moving, not the sun. It’s the way that makes sense to us, based on our vantage point. I guess what I’m saying is the Bible isn’t a science textbook but it also doesn’t seem to be overtly inaccurate scientifically? I guess we don’t really know what the flood exactly describes… Yet, whenever I’ve traveled cross country by land or air, the land does look like it was all shaped by flood waters and earthquakes to me… Well, it’s all shrouded in the mists of antiquity and figurative language.

  66. siteseer wrote:

    Yet, whenever I’ve traveled cross country by land or air, the land does look like it was all shaped by flood waters and earthquakes to me… Well, it’s all shrouded in the mists of antiquity and figurative language.

    but the land still yields its secrets up to those who come looking for them respectfully …. the land has a story to tell 🙂

    ” …the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
    The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself,
    for it is God, the Conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
    (Gaudium et Spes)

  67. siteseer wrote:

    I heard Henry Morris speak once, back in the 70’s and I found him inspirational, he brought out some pretty neat things from the Genesis account.

    Henry Morris is considered the father of creation science. He was one of the first who made creationism sound scientifically plausible. But he badly used science in order to do so. He and his followers were/are very convincing. I believed that stuff as an young Christian. But in the mean time I have learned that there are far better explanations.

    Books by Hugh Ross have been very helpful for me. I’m not sure that I agree with everything he proposes, but I’ve learned to see things from a different perspective. For example, Genesis 1 seems to indicate that the frame of reference is the surface of the earth, not a “God’s eye” view from above the earth. With that perspective, the Genesis account fits much better with modern science: the early earth was covered in water and likely had am opaque atmosphere. So the the creation account could be describing the transformation of an unlivable planet into a livable planet, starting with transforming the atmosphere to transparent (“let there be light”) to support photosynthesis, and then to translucent (“Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens…”), creation of continents through plate tectonics (“let the dry land appear”), establishing a stable water cycle (“God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse”), etc. It also depends on how one translates the Hebrew word “yom” – it can mean many things including “day” or a very long epoch.

    If you have any particular questions I would be glad to dive into them, perhaps on the open discussion page.

  68. Dee,
    Is your proposed “basic guts” of a permanent page intended to be an official position of TWW?

  69. siteseer wrote:

    Some believe in evolution but believe that it was a process guided by God.

    This has generally been my approach. Whatever is true is true. It does not mean you can’t believe that God was the impetus. I have always thought of God as the why and science as the how.

    Now, some science has been bad, and some as you mentioned has been speculative (this I compare to people who find potsherds and try to figure out a host of things about a society from them. Some cannot help but be wrong and we may never know one way or the other but its fun to speculate) but hopefully it has been replaced by good science in these cases.

    I am not a scientist in any way and my only real laymen’s interest is in viruses.

  70. siteseer wrote:

    I’ve been reading with interest the posts about YEC. This can be such a contentious subject because both sides tend to revert to insulting the other instead of covering the facts. And each side seems to feel threatened by or indignant about the existence of the other.
    I find so much of it confusing.
    I was very interested in science as a child, was sure I would go into some scientific field. I was fascinated with nature and the universe. When I got into high school, it seemed all we learned about was evolution. We did not study much of the creation/natural world, only enough to be used to present evolution as the most important thing to know. I began to feel that a lot of it was propaganda that I was being forced to accept without question (this was long before I was a Christian or believer in God). I lost interest in science and went in other directions. It became dull and lifeless to me. I could not understand why the whole emphasis was on trying to set down dogma on things that we cannot know, and that seemed like it went against the scientific method itself, to me. I wondered why we couldn’t study what is here now, using the scientific method, without it having to turn into a philosophical study of what must have happened at a time we can never know and is beyond our sphere of understanding. The joy of discovery and the wonder of the universe around us were missing.
    I do understand the desire to know and the fascination with the subject but it seems to me that science is used as a stepping off point to philosophy more than an end in itself, and much of it seems like mostly a matter of interpretation? The bones of an unknown creature represent a missing link to the evolutionist and another now extinct created species to the creationist, or the similarity of species represents proof of evolution to the evolutionist but simply a preferred design to the creationist.
    As I said, I lost interest in science and did not continue on in it so I’m sure my words are very ignorant and, indeed, I am reluctant to speak on it because there tends to be so much animosity on the subject and one’s questions are not usually answered, rather one is shamed and made to feel foolish for even questioning.
    As an adult, after I became a Christian, I did do a bit of reading on creationism. There are some in-depth books out there, beyond my level of expertise, that are not YEC so much as a discussion of the evidence for evolution vs the evidence for creation. I did become aware that many scientists believe in God and some form of creation. Some believe in evolution but believe that it was a process guided by God. And it seems like the main area of contention is in the age of the earth? Carbon dating saying one thing while the Bible says something very different. This is so often used, by each side, to force others to choose between only two choices: YEC or atheistic evolution. Personally, I don’t feel like the Bible is so clear on the beginnings as to be used as a literal textbook and I find that evolution doesn’t really answer any of my questions about why we are here or the meaning of life. Is there a place that a person like me fits into the scheme of things?

    I think when God described the history of the earth to Moses, he used very easy and simple language for him. The main point is that God made everything. The details on how each step was done is for the audience at the time.

    If God told Moses about DNA and distant galaxies, it won’t have make any sense to him.

    It is almost like we reading Mark 4:30-32. And we argue that Mustard seed isn’t the smallest seed on earth. Nor is it the biggest garden plant. So since Jesus “clearly” knows nothing about gardening, he cannot be God. So then we look only at the details and miss the whole picture.

    As for evidence, we are talking about a God that can stop a storm with just one word. We are talking about a God that is anti-gravity, that can fly and walk on water. Even mighty oceans can be split on his word. So honestly who cares about evidence for an old earth or the bible adds up to 6,000 years?

    God doesn’t change the whole world to “prove” to the world that he exists. He only provided one proof: Jesus Christ who died and was resurrected. That’s why I couldn’t care less if they find a talking Ape tomorrow. Jesus still died and he was risen. And that is all the evidence I need.

  71. CHIPS wrote:

    So honestly who cares about evidence for an old earth or the bible adds up to 6,000 years?

    I care about this issue because Young Earthers are saying you aren’t a Christian if you don’t believe the world is 6,000 years old. They have made it a primary issue, not a secondary issue.

    And Young Earthers ignore the fact that words had different meanings in Hebrew than in English. The word “Yom” in the creation story/Genesis had 58 different meanings in Hebrew.

    As Nancy2 has made very logical arguments concerning “a day”.

  72. Velour wrote:

    I care about this issue because Young Earthers are saying you aren’t a Christian if you don’t believe the world is 6,000 years old. They have made it a primary issue, not a secondary issue.

    Same here. Their elevation of this to a primary issue is very bad for Christianity. It was never a litmus test for orthodoxy until the middle of the last century.

  73. Velour wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    So honestly who cares about evidence for an old earth or the bible adds up to 6,000 years?
    I care about this issue because Young Earthers are saying you aren’t a Christian if you don’t believe the world is 6,000 years old. They have made it a primary issue, not a secondary issue.
    And Young Earthers ignore the fact that words had different meanings in Hebrew than in English. The word “Yom” in the creation story/Genesis had 58 different meanings in Hebrew.
    As Nancy2 has made very logical arguments concerning “a day”.

    Yeah that’s some dangerous theology they have! I do not see how believing the death and resurrection of Jesus has ANYTHING to do with believing the earth is millions of years old or 6,000 years old.

    Yes they are putting a secondary theology in the place of the primary theology. Sounds like more grounds for abuse. My way or the highway.

  74. CHIPS wrote:

    Yeah that’s some dangerous theology they have! I do not see how believing the death and resurrection of Jesus has ANYTHING to do with believing the earth is millions of years old or 6,000 years old.
    Yes they are putting a secondary theology in the place of the primary theology. Sounds like more grounds for abuse. My way or the highway.

    Indeed, the NeoCalvinists have a dangerous theology. And everything is ‘primary’ for them, except of course the simple Gospel message.

    Young Earth is primary for NeoCals, Complementarian/Patriarchy is primary, obeying and submitting to your authoritarian elders is primary, Membership Covenants are primary, and a whole host of other secondary issues that they claim are “Biblical”. If you aren’t in lockstep with them they say you’re — gasp — “unBiblical”.

  75. Deebs – it occurred to me that we’ve all overlooked a really obvious useful change to TWW. Namely, the “Open Discussion” page should be re-named “In Other News…” (the ellipsis is important).

  76. siteseer wrote:

    I do understand the desire to know and the fascination with the subject but it seems to me that science is used as a stepping off point to philosophy more than an end in itself, and much of it seems like mostly a matter of interpretation?

    I think it worth making an observation here.

    Science is indeed, often, used as a stepping-off point to philosophy of some kind, but not by scientists. Scientists use each piece of science as a stepping-off point for the next piece of science – that is, to refine their search for additional data that will either support, or undermine, their explanations for the data they already have. So, a scientist finding a fossil won’t stop looking for fossils; (s)he will look for more fossils to provide more information than could be gained from the first one alone.

    One vast difference between science and philosophy is the testable prediction. So, here’s a fossil, and the nature of the fossil suggests that X. But if that were true, we’d expect to see Y and Z as well. So, we look for them. If we find them, that supports (but may not necessarily prove) X; and if we don’t, it suggests we were wrong the first time and we need to re-think.

    The flat-earthists of the late 19th century could indeed philosophise about the flatness of the earth; and they could come up with silly and illogical arguments based on incomplete or otherwise cherry-picked data to “prove” it, rather like an economist or politician “proving” that my policies are the only way towardsABetterSociety. What they could not do is make testable predictions about the edge of the earth, nor find it, nor talk about what was beyond it. Nor could they concoct a rigorous and consistent body of theory that was rigorously consistent with all the available data.

  77. siteseer wrote:

    I do understand the desire to know and the fascination with the subject but it seems to me that science is used as a stepping off point to philosophy more than an end in itself, and much of it seems like mostly a matter of interpretation?

    Let me add a little to what Nick has said. One consequence of the testability of science is technology. The technology that enables a near simultaneous conversation between people spread all over our planet is derived from the same science that is providing the billions of years estimate of the Earth’s age. Another application of the same technology is that it enables for the construction of Ken Ham’s “ark” and “museum”.