Northwoods Seelsorger

Living in denial may offer a comfortable way to avoid the ultimate dilemma.  However, eventually one must face the difficult truth that the faith which we confess simply does not square with true evolutionary theory.  You cannot have it both ways.  Even theistic evolution cannot solve the core issue:  Why does Jesus have to die if a literal fall never occurs?  As an atheist Austin Cline may best see the logical inconsistency with retaining a traditional Christian viewpoint and trying to hang on the evolutionary conviction.  In an article entitled "Does Evolution Contradict Christianity" he writes: The central message of Christianity is that Jesus' death and resurrection pays for our sins — we deserve death and eternal punishment, but Jesus paid the price for us. To paraphrase Paul: without that, the Christian faith is in vain. Without these sins, there would be no need for Jesus to be punished and killed. The question then becomes: is this notion of sin tenable

The quote that follows explains further the concern I expressed in a previous post regarding Evolution and the Christian faith.  Dr. John D. Morris is the president of the Institute for Creation Research and an avowed young earth proponent.  Dr. Morris' words demonstrate the incompatibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory and classic Christian theology.  One cannot embrace Evolution and not change the Faith.  "Evolution and the Bible most seriously conflict at this point (their respective views of death, which are central to each viewpoint). If evolution (or even just the concept of an old earth, with death and fossils predating man's sin) is correct, then death is natural, death is normal, death produced man. Most importantly, in this view, death is not the penalty for sin, for it preceded man and his sin. But if death is not the penalty for sin, then the death of Jesus Christ did not pay that penalty, nor did His resurrection from the dead provide eternal li

At the end of A New Christianity for a New World , John Shelby Spong looks to the future and contemplates a possible scenario for the church of tomorrow. In a previous work the former bishop declared that Christianity must change or die, and now he takes the next step in that forecast.  While admitting that "many churches, if given choice, choose to die rather than change," he does not see a wholesale death of the faith, as such.  He believes that "faith-communities will emerge...inside our existing structures," eventually separating and beginning new forms.  Now one may rightly argue that these new "faith-communities" will bear no resemblance to Christianity as we now know it or it has been known since its inception.  The point is, that despite the radical overhaul and transformation of the existing church he looks for, the existing church will change.  Personally I think that the former bishop's predictions sell short the resolve of orthodox churches

Many Christians attempt to hold in tension a belief in Evolution and a commitment to the creator God.  At best this results in a felicitous inconsistency. Despite embracing a doctrine with the potential to unravel the foundation of their faith, they fail to follow through on the logical consequences, content to allow two disparate concepts to stand together as if they agreed.  On the other hand some follow where the logic leads and end up in place quite different than where they began.  Such is the case with John Shelby Spong.  In his book A New Christianity for a New World he demonstrates where the path leads once one entertains a denial of the Creation account and embraces Evolution in its place:  "I now regard the traditional Christian interpretation of the account of the fall of humanity, told in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, as the ultimate example of distorted negative thinking.  I prefer to look at the wonder of humanity and to celebrate the incredible gift of self-

Dr. Becker clearly wants a reaction.  His continued rhetoric on the topic of women's ordination begs for a response.  However, one wonders whether the powers that be in the LC-MS have paid any notice, which, I suspect, is what he most desires.  He seems to be a rather lone voice in the wilderness on this one - at least in the cyber-wilderness of the Missouri Synod.  It is tempting to respond, yet the approach of Dr. Becker makes it hard to address the issue without falling into the morass of emotionally-laden rhetoric.  He appeals to all those crushed spirits denied what their hearts have told them was good, right and salutary.  They have felt the call, so who can deny them?  He lists testimonials and sympathetic cheers to bolster the appearance of a groundswell of support from the grassroots.  An accusation of legalism makes an attempt to cast a disparaging light on the opposition.  Add to this an appeal to the Hebrew form for Spirit in the feminine voice for scriptural ammunitio