HEALING; FROM A TO Z

   He seemed nervous and slightly agitated.  Then I realized this young Amish father was probably afraid that his church leaders would find out that I, an "English" person, had prayed for his child who was facing surgery.  The "A" in our title stands for Amish.  Many of them believe it is wrong to pray for healing.  The word fatalistic comes close to describing them.  They believe it is a sin to presume upon God.  When Susan and I gave God the credit for a successful morning deer hunting an Amish bishop pointed his finger in my face and said: "don't you be presumptuous!"  When I saw him again seven years later his attitude toward me had softened considerably.  Seven years after that he asked me to pray for safe travel for him and his wife!"  But, nevertheless, the Amish aversion to praying for healing represents one extreme.

   Standing on the opposite extreme is the teaching that quotes "by His wounds I have been healed" and maintains that failure to receive healing is none other that failure to believe and claim this truth.  The "Z" in our title would then stand for zealous.  In some instances these folks may be correct.  There are probably more times than we can count that God stands willing to do for the believer much more than the believer is willing to believe!  It is the attempt to make a universal application of this that is impossible to square with the whole testimony of Scripture. 

   It is at this point that you, the reader, probably think that that I am going to say that the truth lies in the middle of these two extremes.  But I am very reluctant to come across that way.  That could easily sound very arrogant on my part.  The total Scriptural witness on the matter of healing is difficult to place in rigid categories.  There might conceivably be times when it would be wrong to ask for healing.  So the Amish attitude might not always be wrong even if it normally is.  And there are certainly some times when failure to believe God prevents a miracle of healing from taking place.  So the zealous are not always wrong.  We could stop right here and say that we have just seem how utterly dependent we are upon the Holy Spirit to know which Scripture applies to our situation.

   Many thousands of Christians pray for healing with the words "If it be Your Will".  But certainly sometimes that could easily be a pious cover for unbelief or not actually seeking the will of God on how to pray.  Just about any position on healing that a Christian may take can be supported by quoting some passage of Scripture isolated from other passages that bear on the issue.  I started out on this journey by witnessing a group of elders anoint and pray for a young woman who was going blind.  Within a short time she was reading without glasses.  I was only 17 years of age at that time and had never witnessed anything like this.  I had grown up among those who sometime prayed for the sick but with little expectation of anything happening.  Some would build their entire beliefs about healing on one experience like I witnessed.  Others would simply dismiss it as rare and remain unconvinced.  Eventually I drifted into what is known in theology as a cessationist position which is all too common.  This is the belief that miracles and miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were only for the Apostles and have ceased to exist.  I came to repent of that attitude, but only very, very slowly.

   When our three children were still very small Susan developed a condition for which she was referred to an orthopedic surgeon who happened to be a Christian.  While we were in his office he called in another surgeon who was also a Christian.  After thoroughly examining Susan they said, "We have done this surgery successfully on a number of persons but we believe that God wants to heal you."  They joined hands with Susan and I and prayed for us.  Within weeks Susan was completely healed of that problem.  In retrospect I cannot understand why my attitude toward healing did not soften and change right then.  But in some inexplicable hardness of the human heart I continued in a generally cessationist mentality for several years. 

   Where do I stand now?  I take seriously the passage in James 5 about anointing and prayer for the sick.  I do not explain it away as many cessationists do.  But I have come to see that the most important factor in that passage is "confess your sins one to another that you may be healed".  I believe that there is an ebb and flow to miracles in history and in locations.  I believe that the most persecuted and impoverished believers are the ones most likely to see miracles, but certainly not the only ones.  I do not believe that the absence of a healing miracle is necessarily a sign of unbelief.  The great Apostle Paul, in his last letter, said "Trophimus have I left at Miletus sick".  He did not agonize over why Trophimus was still sick, he just mentioned it as a fact of life without assigning some great doctrinal significance to it.  I believe that you should be very suspicious of people who urge you to quit receiving a certain medical treatment and "trust God for your healing".  Unless you clearly discern the Holy Spirit telling you to break off a certain medical treatment then you should follow the words of Jesus, "Those who are sick need a physician".  (I have intentionally avoided giving Scripture references in the belief that those who want to seriously pursue this matter will look them up.)

   I believe in praying about sickness in myself and others with thanksgiving.  I thank God that this illness or injury did not take Him by surprise; that He knew it before the world was created; that he permitted it for purposes that will ultimately work for my or your good.  I thank Him that He will give wisdom on what to do about this condition; that I and you do not have to walk in darkness but can have the light of life each step of the way.  I thank Him when I live through a day without any illness or injury.  I pray for people He brings to my mind with a prayer that may go something like this:  "Father, if there is one cancer cell beginning in that person's body please destroy it.  If there is a congenital condition unknown to them, please heal it.  If they are about to be injured, please prevent it."  These are a few examples of how I talk to our Father.

   Some of you reading this know that Susan was diagnosed with malignant lymphoma in December 1988.  Was she miraculously delivered?  Or, was she treated successfully with appropriate therapy?  The answers are "yes" and "yes".  Many, many people have not survived what she had.  She had four reoccurrences of this condition.  It has been five years the last occurrence.  God has taught us much over the last 28 years.  We see clearly how fragile life is.  We are well aware that what James called the "powerful and effective prayers of righteous persons" ascended to heaven on our behalf.  We are more aware than ever that there is no hard and fast doctrine about healing that can replace our total dependence upon the Holy Spirit to show us each step to take and which Scripture most applies to our situation.  (Please feel free to send me a message through social media about this topic or of a need to pray for you.)  

  

 

APPRECIATION . . . . . . . . AND A FEW REGRETS

   Cheerleaders once yelled to crowds:  "two, four, six, eight; who do we appreciate?"  Comments on social media postings have raised the issue of what my theological beliefs are and with whom, past or present, I would identify myself.  I am extremely reluctant to take one person or movement and filter the Scriptures through them, no matter how brilliant and godly they may have been.  I replied to one of those comments by saying that I am "eclectic", meaning I draw from several sources.  How far back in Christian history should I go?  Let's start with the Reformation and Martin Luther to express some appreciation.
   If Luther did nothing more than bring Romans 1:16 & 17 to the world of his day he would have earned his place in history.  He made great use of the Latin word "sola" (alone).  When the church had put itself over the Scriptures he led the way back to being under the Scriptures.  This is what he and the other reformers meant by sola scriptura.  They replaced the so called meritorious works of the church with sola gratia (grace) and sola fide (faith) as the source and means of salvation. Good works were placed back into the framework of the Scriptures as the fruit and evidence of salvation, not the procuring cause.  Luther's use of liturgy and formality is appreciated by some but may be a hindrance to others.  He put the Scriptures into the language of the people and that great effort has never stopped.  The emphasis of the reformers on literacy, so everyone can read the Scriptures, led to the great emphasis on education in the British colonies in America.  We owe Luther and his fellow reformers a great debt, even if we do not embrace all their theology.
   If Luther had not been so unbalanced in his position on the peasant wars and had not lived long enough to say the terrible things about the Jews that he did . . .  well, you see what I mean.
   The next word of appreciation goes to John Calvin.  Typically, people think of the theological system called Calvinism but my appreciation for him has more to do with fact that you can draw a straight line from him to America's constitutional republic.  It was Calvin's emphasis on the concept of the covenant that the Puritans brought to America.  It produced the Mayflower Compact and every written constitution of the 13 states and eventually the U.S. Constitution itself.  Along with his emphasis on the Scriptures this was, I believe, his great legacy.  That America and England did not have a bloody revolution like France is because they followed more in the way of John Calvin than the "other John of Geneva" - Jean Jacques Rousseau.
   The system known as Calvinism, developed by Dutch theologians after Calvin's death, is embraced wholly by a few, in part by many Evangelicals, and shunned by many who consider it a caricature of God.
   The alternative to Calvinism in theology is often said to be Arminianism, from Jacob Arminius, another Dutch theologian.  But in practical terms the principal theological alternative is Wesleyanism, from the brothers John and Charles Wesley.  If we follow Jesus' pattern of judging by fruits it is doubtful that any Christian leader in the last 500 years has any more practical fruits than John Wesley.  He pioneered in the use of the monthly Christian magazine, open air preaching, the use of small pamphlets or tracts, and home discipleship groups. Churches that stand in the Wesleyan tradition are almost too numerous to mention.  This would include all groups that have Methodist in their name (leaving out that part of Methodism that has sold its soul to liberal theology), Wesley(an) in their name; Holiness, Salvation Army, Nazarene, Church of God (Anderson Indiana), and on and on. Pentecostal churches are sometimes called the 'grandchildren' of Wesley.  Emphasis on evangelism, revival, and practical service in Jesus' Name for the last 250 years is as much indebted to Wesley as anyone.  Charles Wesley ranks as one of the greatest hymn writers in all of Christian history.
   I should be quick to add that John Wesley's dear friend and fellow preacher of the Gospel was George Whitefield, a Calvinist in theology!  Out of friendships like this grew such expressions as "agree to disagree" and "in essentials, unity; and in non essentials, charity".  (Eventually, liberal theology wanted to put everything, including the Deity of Christ, under "non essentials".)  As regards the life of Wesley and the more recent struggles in Methodism, I cannot recommend too highly the book Nothing To Do But To Save Souls by Robert E. Coleman.  Definitely a five star book, and not too lengthy either.
   Moving into the nineteenth century I have an appreciation for Charles G. Finney.  An emphasis on revival, preaching that calls for a decision, calling people forward to indicate a commitment to Christ, and mid week prayer services are all results of Finney's ministry.  I am keenly aware of how much Calvinists despise him but their criticisms tend to be unbalanced and excessive.  Finney is accused of making revivals a 'work of man' instead of a 'work of God'.  But Finney was trying to correct the practices of what one writer has called "Calvinism gone to seed", with its beliefs that revivals were like thunder storms; there was nothing Christians could or should do to promote them.  Another expression of that kind of Calvinism was "God will save the heathen in His own time without your help or mine".
   Finney is rightly challenged on his Governmental (instead of Substitutionary) view of the Atonement.  But what is omitted in this attack on him is that he was at least trying to refute the Universalists of his day who argued that if Christ died in the place of all then somehow God would have to eventually save all.  There are of course much better answers to this than Finney's view of the Atonement but to omit the context makes the attacks grossly unfair.  The transformation of entire towns and districts resulted from his preaching.  He was a pioneer in defending the equality under God of people of African ancestry.  Oberlin College in Ohio, under Finney's leadership, welcomed both Black students and all women when other colleges were closed to both.  Before he died, Howard Jones, the first African-American on Billy Graham's team, was going to show me where Finney's grave was in the Oberlin cemetery.  But Howard passed away before we could do that together.
   I have much appreciation for the nineteenth century British scholar Henry Alford.  I often use his monumental Greek Testament, a commentary on the New Testament in its original language.  In vol. 1 and vol. 4 his defense of the Premillenial view of Scripture is brief but probably the most powerful ever written. I love the hymns he wrote such as "Come Ye Thankful People, Come" and "Ten Thousand Time Ten Thousand".
   In the twentieth century I appreciate, among others, Torrey Johnson and those who helped him found Youth For Christ; the faithfulness and integrity of Billy Graham and his team; and women like Ruth Graham and Elisabeth Elliot.  Without Francis and Edith Schaeffer we would be immeasurably poorer in our development of a Christian world view and in an example of practical Christian love.  Currently I appreciate William Lane Craig, and John Lennox for their work in apologetics.  I appreciate Dr. Hugh Ross and his associates at Reasons To Believe for their scientifically credible defense of Genesis, the "old earth" view of Creation, and the entire Christian world view.  There are many others past and present that I could name.
   But what about regrets?  There are several that cast a shadow over my reflections.  Having memorized more than seven books of the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament during my senior year at Toccoa Falls Academy I regret profoundly that I did not use and quote them at length much more than I did in the months and years that followed.  I also regret allowing myself to be too heavily influenced by the book The Genesis Flood when it came out in 1961.  I regret that for two reasons:  I bought into its several claims  supported by neither careful Biblical exegesis not honest scientific inquiry. Second, I was diverted from teaching much more practical and necessary matters, especially for young couples as the divorce rate was soaring.  I also regret ever adopting a mean spirited, critical approach toward groups and movements that I disagreed with.   I was "rescued" when I discovered the writings of Francis Schaeffer.  He probably did more than anyone in the twentieth century to help many of us escape the poor attitudes and cultural isolation of Fundamentalism while still remaining true to the Scriptures.
    Among those not so well known to whom my great appreciation extends are the late Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth ('Doug') Ross of New London and their sons Don and Neil.  Without their friendship in my teen years I don't know where I would be today.  My parents Dean and Madge Enzor were always supportive.  Then, most importantly, my best friend for life -- Susan.


   
  

TO A FRIEND WHO VOTED FOR HILLARY

   We may have never met.  If so, I hope to meet you and thank you for letting me call you "friend" and thank you for reading this.  You may have read other blogs or posts of mine and if you have you certainly know that you and I must be poles apart philosophically.  So, it says a lot about your fair minded approach to life that you are reading someone with whom you may never agree. 
   You are probably experiencing disappointment so deeply that you feel it must be unprecedented in U.S. history.  That may be true simply because this election has no precedent in our history.  The division in this country has no precedent.  In the last 50 years we have lost a consensus on morality that provided a basis for reconciliation between North and South (after the War) and between Democrats and Republicans after elections.  That consensus is gone.  Christianity, that provided that consensus, is now widely despised.
   But let's get back to addressing your deep hurt and disappointment.  You were probably not even born in 1960 but I believe that was the last time people like me felt the kind of disappointment you now feel.  "But", you say, "were you conservative Evangelicals not bitterly disappointed at the election and reelection of Barak Obama?"  Yes, many of us were, especially at his reelection.  But holding control of the Congress eased our fears somewhat.  You have no such consolation now.
   Why do I compare your feelings now to ours in 1960?  To understand this you must understand how deep were the fears of Roman Catholics holding high office.  For some people this was a non-rational, visceral fear like the No Nothing Party in the 19th century and the Klan in the 1920's.  This was behind the vicious opposition to the Catholic Al Smith, the Democratic candidate in 1928.  But for others in 1960 it was based on an historical survey of countries where the Church of Rome had held control or large influence.  Things did not often go well for liberty and prosperity in countries like that.  This view was held, not just by conservative Evangelicals, but by so-called mainstream Protestants like Norman Vincent Peale of Marble Collegiate Church in New York City.  You may recall that he wrote the best selling The Power Of Positive Thinking in the 1950's.   (An unrelated but interesting footnote to history is that a young Donald Trump attended Peale's church and acquired much of his optimism there.)
    John F. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic to be elected President and his victory in November 1960 is what drove people like me (18 years old) into deep disappointment like you feel now.  Our unwarranted fears of Roman Catholicism were combined with our naïve belief that the Republican Richard Nixon was "one of us".  He had, after all, spoken at Billy Graham's New York Crusade in 1957.  I am now getting to the place where I hope that can see that your fears now are as unfounded as ours were then.  While Kennedy may have been grossly immoral in private, his acts as President were, in retrospect, far from unfriendly to us who had feared him.
   Once, he instructed one of his assistants to contact a South American government to help Billy Graham get the use of a certain arena for one of his crusades.  Kennedy had several long talks with Billy Graham, the first of which was shorty after the election.  Kennedy urged Congress to cut taxes because, he said, "a rising tide (the economy) lifts all boats".  Most importantly, Kennedy refused to take the advice of some generals and invade Cuba.  We now know that this cool headed restraint prevented a nuclear war.  Nixon may now not, and probably would not, have done the same.  We both know what Nixon turned out to be like once he got into the White House.  And now, 56 years later, we Evangelicals are allies and friends with many Catholics in our deepest concerns for our country.
   So, my friend, even though many things are different now I believe that a good case can be made that you will someday, like me, see that your fears were greatly exaggerated and perhaps even completely unfounded.  Trump will, it appears, appoint people, especially judges, who will move us back toward a Christian base of law and morality.  While this is feared by those who want to do anything sexually ("LGBT") it is ultimately their dignity and worth as individuals (like the pre-born baby) that is lost if the Christian base is lost.  Jefferson, in the Declaration, called this base "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God". 
   If I were you, my dear friend, I would welcome someone who wants to appoint people who will move us in that direction again. 
    May you, and those dear to you, be greatly blessed by God.

ELK HUNTING AND LIVING THIS MOMENT

   Several years ago I was the guest of a friend on an elk hunt in Wyoming.  It was an eight hour ride on horseback through mountains and meadows to get to the base camp.  There were places on that ride, to and from the camp, where you held the reins very lightly and let the horse "do his thing".  A wrong step to the right or left could plunge the horse and you to your deaths. 
   I think of this when I read of people who call themselves "evangelical Christians" taking positions clearly contrary to biblical teaching on such things as same sex relationships and marriage.  They are plunging off a spiritual cliff and risk the loss of their souls and the souls of their followers.  They are plunging off to the left.  Someone like me faces the danger of plunging off to the right.
   The men who crucified Jesus plunged off to the right.  The group known as the Pharisees began as a movement to defend the Law of Moses and all of what we call the Old Testament.  They plunged off the cliff because they closed their eyes to a large body of Scripture about the Messiah being a suffering Servant.  They also closed their eyes to other Scripture, Jesus said, about God desiring mercy more than sacrifice.
   But let's go back for a moment to the people going off the left side.  Their movement, if I can call it that, goes back at least to the 1970's with leaders like Jim Wallis who founded Sojourners, and the popular speaker Tony Compollo.  I would include Ron Sider who wrote the book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.  When speaking at churches Wallis would hold up a Bible that had been cut to shreds and accuse his white, middle class Protestant audience of cutting out of the Bible everything about helping the poor.  Compollo said similar things, even claiming that all the poor of the world, regardless of what they believed or did, were automatically the 'brothers of Christ'.  He was confronted by a group of evangelical theologians for this and backed off somewhat.
   These three men, and many others, allowed their sincere compassion to blind them to the truth about the actual causes of poverty since the 1960's.  They embraced badly discredited economic policies of forcible redistribution of wealth.  So, you can see why they were sometimes called Marxists.  Their irrational compassion led them into a form of man-centeredness or humanism.  The poor were made into an idol which, in turn, has led them to support the most anti-God and anti-Christ politicians and political platforms of modern times.  To better understand the errors of men like this I strongly recommend two books:  Toxic Charity and Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulation.
   This distorted sense of compassion and man-centeredness has also led at least two of these men to support same sex marriage.  They had genuine compassion for people struggling with same sex attractions.  But their remedy for the pains of these people was, in effect, "go ahead and sin; grace will abound".  They are being followed in their plunge off the cliff by some other high profile "evangelicals".  Surveys indicate that around one third of people under 40 who consider themselves to be evangelicals and an alarmingly high number over the age of 40 are jumping off this same cliff.  What was unthinkable just a few years ago is now a growing movement among people who call Jesus Lord.  Will they someday hear from Him the words, "depart from me you who practice lawlessness"?
   But, it is also possible to go over a cliff on the right side.  "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love"  (I John 4:8)  Reading this and Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man, gives me a sense of holy fear.  That story in Luke 16 was not given, as we were often told, for the purpose of describing hell.  It was given to tell me that if I say I love God but refuse to help someone hurting within arm's reach of me, then I am a lost soul.  It warns me lest I reject compassion just because some may have a twisted and irrational kind.  It cautions me against all kinds of smugness and arrogance.  Watching those who are plunging off the cliff to the left warns me against following the spirit of this age, whether that wind is blowing toward the left or the right.
   Back to the elk hunt.  To the best of my knowledge no horse and rider ever went off one of those cliffs.  The only accident I know of was when the friend who took me on the hunt was thrown by his horse onto a boulder in the midst of a stream.  We learned a year later that horse had a history of things like that.  By the mercy of God my friend survived.  What do you and I learn from that episode? -- the value of a dependable horse!  And how about this: if Jesus is compared to both a lion and a lamb would it also be fair to say that, like a dependable horse, He, through the Holy Spirit, is carrying us?  I don't know about you but I'm going to let Him navigate the cliff of living in this dangerous moment of history.  I know where He is taking me and I know He will get me there.
  

THE NOISE WON'T DO IT: WARTIME QUOTES AND YOUR STRUGGLE TODAY

    During what is known as "The Battle of the Bulge" in December 1944 an entire U.S. armored division was retreating from the Germans in the Ardennes forest when a sergeant in a tank destroyer spotted an American digging a foxhole.   That in itself was no easy job with the ground frozen in the coldest winter Europe had seen a century.  The G.I. digging the foxhole was PFC Martin of the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment.  He looked up at the sergeant and said, "Are you looking for a safe place?"  "Yep", answered the tanker.  "Well, buddy," he drawled, "just pull your vehicle behind me.  I'm the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the b _ _ _ _ _ _ s are going."
   Normally, only small minded people call others humans names like that.  I say "normally".  The word, of course, means "an illegitimate child" or "a contemptible person".   Followers of Adolph Hitler were quite literally both.
That quote is one of my favorites and hangs framed on a wall here because it has a marvelous application to our day by day struggles.  Sooner or later a child of God will feel as threatened and desperate in spirit as those young men felt 72 years ago before the Nazi onslaught.  That quote represents all the courage and resourcefulness of the young Americans who won the largest war in human history.   Looking at marriages ruined, families destroyed, churches split and militant atheism advancing, the believer looks satan in the face and says, "you were defeated on the cross by the shed blood and the risen life of the Lord Jesus; I am His child; He indwells me; all authority in heaven and on earth is His; and THIS IS AS FAR AS YOU ARE GOING!!!
   The Battle of the Bulge produced another memorable quote.  This one was just one word.  The German plan was to push through to the Port of Antwerp, cutting the Allied forces in half and forcing a cease-fire or a truce.
On the major highway of their advance was the town of Bastogne.  At first the town was defended by the 28th Infantry, who were subsequently relieved by the 101st Airborne under Gen. Anthony McAuliffe.  They were totally surrounded and Patton's Third Army was racing from the south to rescue them.  The German commander sent an ultimatum demanding the surrender of the American forces at Bastogne or they would be utterly destroyed.  Gen. McAuliffe read the ultimatum and directed that a one word reply be sent to the German commander:  "NUTS!!!"   Don't you just love it?  And the Germans did not understand American slang.  "Nuts!  Was ist das?"
   I would not trivialize our struggles with satan and demonic spirits but when pressed hard to quit and give up maybe we should just to him, "Nuts", and keep right on walking with the Lord.  And we have infinitely more resources than Patton's Third Army to rescue us!
   Our next one comes from Viet Nam and it is not an actually quote.  Through the years I have read many articles by the man who was assigned by the U.S. Army to train South Vietnamese forces to defend themselves after the French were defeated in 1954 and withdrew from Viet Nam.  This man wrote about how small of stature the typical Vietnamese soldier was.  So, what did some genius at the Pentagon decide to arm them with?  Big, heavy, bulky U.S. M-1 Garand rifles left over from WW2 and Korea and weighing around 10 pounds fully loaded.   They were heavy even for many U.S. soldiers who were larger and stronger.  If that wasn't bad enough the Vietnamese were convinced that what killed the enemy was, not the bullet coming out of the rifle barrel, but the NOISE of the rifle.  Seriously!  And no amount of explanation could convince them otherwise.
   This is where we got our title for this blog.  There seems to be a widely held belief among American Christians that our "noise" will defeat demonic strongholds and win people to Christ.  Preaching, music, Bible studies, taking stands on moral issues, arguments and reasoning all have their place.  But unless "real bullets" are hitting the enemy we are as self deceived as the Vietnamese soldiers.  Hear the words of Paul to his beloved Thessalonian believers:  "Because our gospel came to you not simply with words ("noise") but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction."  (I Thess. 1:5)   The Lord Jesus used 'real bullets' against satan.  They came right out of the 'ammo depot' of Deuteronomy and Jesus 'fired' them with great accuracy and effectiveness at the Enemy.  God helping me, I will do no less.
  
  

A FEW THINGS YOU PROBABLY WERE NEVER TOLD

   With all the admiration now given to the late Martin Luther King Jr. I wonder how many now know that when he was alive relatively few white Christians admired him.  Looking at old photos of the marches he led you will see mainly liberal Protestant, Roman Catholic or Jewish leaders marching with him.  Christians who wore the label "Fundamentalist" back then despised King for two reasons.  They saw him as a theological liberal and they supported segregation of the races as something that "God ordained".  Believers who preferred the label "Evangelical" generally believed that racist attitudes were ungodly but they were often cool toward King, primarily because they sincerely believed that confronting white racism would get a lot of innocent people hurt or even killed.  Being conservative in theology tended to make them conservative in matters that required confrontation.  The passing of time has put things in better perspective. 
   There were some notable exceptions.  The late Frank Gabelein, a leading Evangelical scholar and educator, was sent by Christianity Today Magazine to report on one of the marches that King led.  At a certain point his conscience moved him to leave the crowd of spectators and join the march. 
   Now, on to something else you may not have known.  Until well into the 1960's what was the moral issue that dominated the thinking of many Christians?  It was - are you ready for this - the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks!  The 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of most alcoholic beverages,  had been considered by millions of Christians to be the ultimate triumph of righteousness in America.  The 21st Amendment that repealed it in 1933 was the most bitter of disappointments.  As a child, 20 years later, in 1953 I personally witnessed the cause of Christ and evangelism hurt badly in the community where I lived by the zealous efforts of Christians to make alcoholic drink illegal.  They lost the vote that November by a 2 -1 margin but bitter feelings remained for many years.
   Back to the subject of human rights for everyone regardless of skin color:  did you know that a century or more ago the proper words were "Colored" or "Negro", as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)?  Then, in the 1960's "Black" became the word of preference, as in "Black Pride".  But that didn't last long.  Jesse Jackson and others promoted the term "African-American" and it is still the term of preference.  Many thoughtful people, both Black and White, believe it is unwise to have hyphenated Americans.  I agree with them but I use the term out of respect for the wishes of others.
    Along these same lines, did you know that 90 years ago the ethnic group with the lowest rate of pregnancy outside of marriage was - you guessed it - African-American girls?  The church, either Baptist or Pentecostal, was the center and anchor of life for most Black families.  The grace of God experienced in fellowship with other believers sustained them through the cruelties of slavery and segregation.  Did you also know that the 1915 movie "The Birth of a Nation" glorified the KKK and fueled the myth among Whites that Black men lustfully pursued white women?
   Did you know that the virtual destruction of the Black family in America is a result of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty in the 1960's?  The government sent the message: "the father is not needed in the Black family (or any family for that matter).  The government will take care of you".
   Did you know that at any moment in the past that you could point to, there were thoughtful and intelligent people saying "morals are so low that at this rate we won't last long"?  Does that mean that our present situation is not as bad as we might think?  Not at all.  It only means that humans have always been capable of the same evil things we see now.  The big difference between now and the past is that once restraints are removed they are rarely, if ever, brought back unless there is a major spiritual revival in a nation.
   Did you know that Bill Clinton's immorality in the White House was not at all the first to happen there?  What was a 'first' was:  1) it was revealed while the President involved was still in office; and 2) his popularity remained high and even rose.  This was a watershed in U.S. history.
   This one you may already know.  The main "health crisis" in America is -- the way people eat.  In a word, the crisis is obesity.  Add to that, diabetes, cancers of various types and all other maladies connected with poor dietary habits.  I offended one or more people some time ago in one of these blogs with the passing comment that just observing crowds of people anywhere will show how widespread and serious this problem is.  I should have said it differently.  I should have said what an opportunity for Christians to set an example in the way they eat and maintain a healthy weight.
   Do you know that this Presidential election has no precedent in U.S. history.  No woman has ever been this close to the Presidency.  Never before has someone with no political experience been this close.  Never before has someone with a record of crude, vulgar and arrogant statements been this close to the Presidency, and not only close but promising, if elected, to promote those things dear to the hearts of millions of Christians! 
   You and I both struggle to grasp how full of danger and how full of hope and promise for the Cause of Christ this moment is.  Charles Dickens said the days of the French Revolution were "the best of times and the worst of times".  He should be alive now.  The spirit of antichrist may be everywhere but people are coming to Christ in numbers almost too large to grasp.  Fifty year ago Chairman Mao promised to eradicate Christianity in China.  Today the Church there is growing as fast or faster than anywhere on earth.  I know that from eternity I shall look back with unbounded gratitude to God that he let me live at this moment; not only let me live but speak and write for his honor and for the good of others. 
   I almost forgot.  A copy of this blog and $1.00 will get you a free coffee at participating McDonalds.
  
  

CREATION AND THE FLOOD: THREE VIEWS

  The three views we will describe are all held by Evangelical Christians.  By Evangelical I mean those who take the claims of Christ seriously; who hold to the orthodox, historic Christian faith; and who believe it is absolutely necessary for every individual to personally believe and commit to the Gospel (Gr. euangellion) that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose bodily from the dead on the third day.  There are at least some people in every branch of Christianity who fit this description,  and because they take seriously the claims of Christ they want to take seriously the truth of God as Creator.   This summary of the three views comes from 60 years of reading and reflection on these matters.   
   Before we go any further we need to clarify a few terms.  Naturalism is the belief that everything that exists can be explained without any reference to the infinite, Personal God.  Naturalism (in a philosophical sense) views the existence of God as irrelevant to questions of origins and ignores or minimizes the fact that modern science was born of the Christian world view.  Without the belief in a rational Creator Who made a creation that can be rationally understood there would be no modern science.   Naturalism, is the term that Christians should be using most of the time when they, instead, use the term evolution.  Conservative Christians have developed a bad habit of using the term evolution always in a bad sense when what they mean is naturalism.  Evolution, in the sense of change over time, is a useful scientific concept and not at all the same as philosophical naturalism.  All naturalists are totally committed to evolutionary explanations alone.  All Christian views of origins believe in at least some change over time (evolution).
   The first of the three views held by some Evangelical Christians is often called theistic evolution (from the Gr. word for God, theos).  But those who hold this view might use terms like evolutionary creation.  The scientific organization they have recently formed is called Biologos, from the New Testament Greek words for life (bios) and word (logos).  They believe: 1)we should look for natural explanations to physical phenomena because the Creator used natural processes to bring about His Creation;  2) always saying "God did it" about things in the physical realm is an error called "the God of the gaps", because,  3) if and when a natural explanation is found, God is make to look unnecessary;  4) the evidence is (in their view) compelling for the common descent of all life (including people) from previous life forms (in particular they point to studies in genetics);  5) there were two creative acts of God --  the initial act,   in which God, in some sense,  programmed atoms to produce the universe and life, and the second direct creative act caused one (or more) highly evolved hominid(s) to be a "living soul in the Image of God";  6) the first eleven chapters of Genesis are more like parables that illustrate truths than they are actual history. 
   Examples of believers who hold (or have held) some form of this view would be, first, the best known Christian writer of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis.  Currently, the best example would be Francis Collins who was in charge of the human genome project in the 1990's.  He was the founder of the Biologos organization and wrote the book  The Language Of God.  Positive comments about this view would include their effort to maintain scientific integrity while recognizing  God as Creator.  Criticisms of the view primarily have to do with denying the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis, when Christ and the New Testament writers certainly seem to refer to them as historical.  Also, they do not believe in "design" in living things.  They believe that God allowed the evolutionary process to run its course and did not interfere or "tinker" with it.  They are also charged with being inconsistent.  Why admit two creative acts of God and no more?  For these reasons this view, although held by nearly all who are theological liberals, is held by a relatively small percentage of Evangelicals.
   The second view we shall look at is the polar opposite of the view just described.   Advocates of this view use terms like Creationism or Creationist but the more accurate designation would be Young Earth - Flood Geology (abbreviated as YEFG).   Although there were many throughout Christian history who believed that the Creation occurred only about four thousand years before Christ, by the 20th century even the most conservative Christians acknowledged that the evidence was overwhelming for the vast age of the earth and the cosmos.  But in the 1920's a Seventh Day Adventist writer, J.M. Price, revived the idea of a "young earth" and that the geologic strata and fossils were all formed at the time of Noah's flood.  The apparent age of things was not the actual age he argued.  He was a persuasive speaker and writer.
   In 1942 a group of evangelical Christians formed the professional scientific organization called The American Scientific Affiliation.  During the 40's and 50's many of their members reviewed the YEFG theory and concluded that the evidence was overwhelmingly against it.  Nevertheless, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris went ahead with the publication of their book The Genesis Flood in 1961 and that book marked the beginning of the modern YEFG movement.  This writer bought a first edition of The Genesis Flood, read it through many times, and memorized many passages.  He became an early and strong advocate of this view.  The movement has grown dramatically in the last 55 years with groups like the Institute For Creation Research and Answers In Genesis spreading the YEFG message.  The Creation Museum and the replica of Noah's ark are efforts of those in this movement.  
    Although the advocates of YEFG would strongly prefer to state their beliefs in their own way, it is fair to say they would go something like this:  1) all creation took place in 144 hours;  2) By adding up the numbers in Genesis ch. 5 and ch. 10 it is concluded that the entire cosmos (not just the earth) is just over 6000 years old;  3) that no animals died before man sinned;  4) that the earth was created before the sun, moon and stars;  5) that there was no rain on the earth until the flood of Noah's time;  6) that animals came to Noah from all regions and climates of the earth and then returned to those regions and climates;  7) that this global flood happened around 2450 BC (in the middle of Egyptian history that goes back to at least 3000 B.C.);  8) that the flood covered the entire planet including the highest mountains;  9) that all, or nearly all, geologic strata and fossils were formed at that time; 10) "observational science" can tell us little if anything about the remote past since knowledge of the distant past can come only through revelation;  11) radiometric dating methods cannot be trusted.
    Positive comments about this view are largely centered in one fact and that is their very commendable insistence on the historical nature of the early chapters in Genesis.  Surveys indicate that as many as 47% of the U.S. population believe at least some of this view.  So, there is a high probability that you, the reader, hold this view.  If you do, it is the desire of this writer that you will sense the effort to balance being fair and charitable with the necessity to be honest regarding problems.
    To put the criticisms of this view in perspective we need to ask why the following respected Christian authors, Bible scholars, scientists and linguists have not embraced YEFG views:
   John Ankerberg, Gleason Archer, Chuck Colson, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, John Lennox, Paul Little, Nancy Pearcy, Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Ken Taylor, R.C. Sproul, and James Dobson, (to name only a few).
    Among the criticisms of the YEFG view, one of the first would be that advocates of YEFG use anecdotal evidence (called "cherry picking" evidence).  Their failure to present fairly and honestly the many and serious objections to their biblical interpretations and scientific claims is another serious concern.   It is charged that they fail to clearly distinguish between their interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself.   It is also charged that they impugn the motives of Christians who disagree with them by accusing them of compromising Scripture when, in fact, many of those they have accused have been in the forefront of defending the trustworthiness of Scripture.   
   Another serious criticism is that scientifically literate young people are being turned away from the Bible altogether by being told that the Bible teaches a six thousand year old universe.   These problems, and others, combine to keep this view on the fringes of Evangelical Christianity even though many thousands believe it.  The criticisms of YEFG can be summarized in three "D's":   Disingenuous in claiming to take the Bible literally (they do not take literally the biblical statements that the earth does not move and that the sun does move);  Dishonest (or at the very least, less than candid) in their use of anecdotal evidence;  and Divisive in the Body of Christ by the way they speak against those who disagree with them.   It is said by their critics that they hold the old fundamentalist anti-science and anti-intellectual attitude.  It is believed that if they shifted their emphasis away from the age of the cosmos/earth and flood geology toward the Creator's design in Creation, they would greatly advance Christian unity and win more respect and credibility.
    The third view held by some evangelical Christians is sometimes called progressive creation or old earth creation.  This view holds:  1) that when all the language of the creation account and all relevant Scriptures are carefully examined, Scripture can be correlated with the conclusions of modern science, including the age of the earth and the universe;  2) we should learn from the mistake that Christians made several centuries ago when they said a "literal" reading of Scripture meant that the sun went around the earth;  3) what God has "written" in the physical universe should be carefully observed to help us correctly interpret Scripture; 4) the flood of Noah's day apparently involved only the region of the world where humans lived, early in human history [earth and land are the same word in Hebrew];  5) there are sizeable gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 10;  6) it was the death of humans that came from sin, not the death of animals;  7) the "days" of creation were six eras or epochs of time during which God created all things;  8) the comparison of the "days" of creation to "days" of the week is an analogy and not an equality of hours since the seventh "day" (Heb. "yom") had no "evening and morning" and extends to the present;  9) the phrase "morning and evening" indicates a close to one era of creation, an interval of time, and the beginning of another era;  10) humans were directly and uniquely created by God;  11) God planned from eternity to replace this earth with a new Heavens and Earth after redemption was completed.
    Positive comments about this view are that it has scientific credibility while treating Genesis as actual history.  Most, if not all, of the names listed above, as well as most Evangelical Christians in the sciences, hold to some form of this view.  Criticisms come first from those who hold to evolutionary explanations and dislike this view for advocating direct creative acts of God, which they call a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy.   YEFG advocates would say that making the list of names in Genesis 5 & 10 cover around 50,000 years (the apparent time humans have been here) is a stretch.  They also call this view "a compromise of biblical truth".    In spite of these criticisms, it is accurate to say that this is the mainstream Evangelical view because it is seen as balancing a high view of Scripture with scientific credibility.
     We might mention in passing that there is a fourth movement or view called Intelligent Design, but it is held by both Christians and non-Christians since it is not specific about Who the Designer is.  Most Christians in that movement would probably agree with old earth creation. 
     This writer can imagine that you, the reader, are feeling a bit overwhelmed by all this and saying something like, "All I know is, God created all things and that there was some kind of flood in Noah's day, but I do not want to argue about the details!"   This writer sympathizes with that feeling because he has spent thousands of hours weighing the merits of these three views and has very gradually modified his own views.  An emphasis on the Creator's design and wisdom in His creation and not on "the age of the earth" seems to be the most fruitful and edifying approach.   In any event, a huge amount of humility is appropriate for anyone regardless of the view they hold.  None of us is infallible in our interpretation of Scripture or our interpretations of scientific data. 
   Like many other issues, evangelical Christians will never agree totally on these matters.  But if we can discuss them calmly and not impugn the motives of those who disagree with us, the Cause of Christ will be the winner.